When the news of Paul's bus being attacked in Mexico was released, I immediately thought back to Lagos. Paul was attacked/robbed there and he was terrified. After John passed away, he said he had security for a week before he realized he couldn't live that way. When Paul recently made the decision to visit Israel, the world gasped with fear, but it turned out okay. What do you think of all this?
It was cleared up this morning that the bus attack was only excited fans, not a true "attack." [I'm not sure how such a mistake could have been made...excited fans were mistaken for a gang riot?] Does it worry and scare you that Paul is so open and accessible? Do you love and respect that Paul is so open and accessible? I've got mixed feelings, I guess. Being open and accessible didn't help John much, but that was quite an extreme situation. Paul's made it 68 years the way he's been living his life, so it seems to be working. Even though he's been through some tense moments like Lagos, he's made it through every time.
George was in his home, which was guarded by security, when he was stabbed. Things can still happen, so Paul might as well live freely. It still worries me that someone so important and precious to me is so accessible, but that's just Paul! I love him just the way it is...and I hope his accessibility is in my favor one day! *wink*
02 June, 2010
15 April, 2010
Autograph Fiasco
When Ringo announced that he wasn't going to sign any more autographs, there was a HUGE backlash against him. He has recently explained himself, saying that eBay was the reason he quit. This explanation has soothed a lot of angry fans, but not all fans. Also, this recent explanation was old news for some. Where do you stand on it all?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8614359.stm
*Do you think Ringo is a jerk for refusing to sign any more autographs?
*Do you think Ringo is entitled to make this decision?
*Do you think Ringo is right for banning future autographs?
*Are you angered by those who have been profiting from selling autographs?
*Are you a fan who relies on eBay for building your Beatles/autograph collection?
*If you have/had an autograph, would you ever sell it? Why?
*Does this decision make you dislike Ringo now?
As I've said in previous entries, I am NOT taking a side because I want to look at both sides and get you all thinking! The purpose of this blog is not to always push my opinions on people, but to inspire thought.
Side 1: If I were him, I would not want to autograph anything anymore. You stop to supposedly make a fan's dream come true...and the next day it's for sale? These people make money off of fooling Ringo into thinking they're fans. That simply should not be happening, especially when these people who are making the money are also unaware of how great the gift is! Why would anyone sell something so precious? They must be crazy! Plus, after so many years in the business, doesn't he have the right to be tired? You've got to stop some time, right? There's countless autographs circulating already...that's enough.
Side 2: As a fan, this announcement hurts. I'd definitely be willing to pay money to get my hands on an autograph because that's the only way I expect to ever have one. Even if these jerks don't appreciate what they have and then make money off of it, I still get something out of it! This announcement kills a lot of opportunities for collectors that won't ever have a chance to meet them...of course now, even if they meet him, they won't get an autograph. Plus, he was a BEATLE, for goodness sake...but he doesn't have enough time to give us fans something quick that we'll treasure forever? You're in show business...what do you expect? You can't be TIRED of it. What about future fans that have no chance now? It's all such a tremendous blessing to be RINGO STARR and you should be grateful!
Some of the things I wrote above I strongly disagree with! Some of the things I wrote above are things I strongly feel. Let me know how YOU feel. Even though I'm not revealing my personal feelings on him and this decision, I will say that when he gave the announcement, he also gave a deadline for autographs. I, like countless others, took his words seriously and wrote him before the deadline and therefore received an autograph in the mail! It may not be personalized and it may not have been handed to me by him during a meeting, but I got one...and I thank him for giving us all that last-chance opportunity!
PS: If anyone is wondering, Paul is still signing autographs...no worries!
Also, Ringo gets picked on A LOT...and it started long before this announcement. I want to be clear that I am NOT posting this debate to participate in Ringo-hating. I am just treating it as a debate because it's a hot issue right now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8614359.stm
*Do you think Ringo is a jerk for refusing to sign any more autographs?
*Do you think Ringo is entitled to make this decision?
*Do you think Ringo is right for banning future autographs?
*Are you angered by those who have been profiting from selling autographs?
*Are you a fan who relies on eBay for building your Beatles/autograph collection?
*If you have/had an autograph, would you ever sell it? Why?
*Does this decision make you dislike Ringo now?
As I've said in previous entries, I am NOT taking a side because I want to look at both sides and get you all thinking! The purpose of this blog is not to always push my opinions on people, but to inspire thought.
Side 1: If I were him, I would not want to autograph anything anymore. You stop to supposedly make a fan's dream come true...and the next day it's for sale? These people make money off of fooling Ringo into thinking they're fans. That simply should not be happening, especially when these people who are making the money are also unaware of how great the gift is! Why would anyone sell something so precious? They must be crazy! Plus, after so many years in the business, doesn't he have the right to be tired? You've got to stop some time, right? There's countless autographs circulating already...that's enough.
Side 2: As a fan, this announcement hurts. I'd definitely be willing to pay money to get my hands on an autograph because that's the only way I expect to ever have one. Even if these jerks don't appreciate what they have and then make money off of it, I still get something out of it! This announcement kills a lot of opportunities for collectors that won't ever have a chance to meet them...of course now, even if they meet him, they won't get an autograph. Plus, he was a BEATLE, for goodness sake...but he doesn't have enough time to give us fans something quick that we'll treasure forever? You're in show business...what do you expect? You can't be TIRED of it. What about future fans that have no chance now? It's all such a tremendous blessing to be RINGO STARR and you should be grateful!
Some of the things I wrote above I strongly disagree with! Some of the things I wrote above are things I strongly feel. Let me know how YOU feel. Even though I'm not revealing my personal feelings on him and this decision, I will say that when he gave the announcement, he also gave a deadline for autographs. I, like countless others, took his words seriously and wrote him before the deadline and therefore received an autograph in the mail! It may not be personalized and it may not have been handed to me by him during a meeting, but I got one...and I thank him for giving us all that last-chance opportunity!
PS: If anyone is wondering, Paul is still signing autographs...no worries!
Also, Ringo gets picked on A LOT...and it started long before this announcement. I want to be clear that I am NOT posting this debate to participate in Ringo-hating. I am just treating it as a debate because it's a hot issue right now.
31 March, 2010
Hidden Messages
It's been a long time...now I'm...coming back home...to my blog! Well, some of this is a stretch. Some of this seems right-on. Some of this is freaky. Some of this is funny. Some of this is nonsense. Some of this tells the story of Paul's "death." Is any of it intentional? I don't know about that. They did backwards music and intentionally had backwards singing on "Rain," for example, but I'm not sure about these hidden messages. I'm not even asking you all to take a stand, but I thought this was simply interesting and wanted to share it:
This was originally composed in 2009. It can also be seen on BeatleSpace.
*DISCLAIMER*
This has the potential to freak some people out, I am sure, but do NOT worry about it. That's NOT my intention! I don't encourage anyone to believe Paul's really dead and all that!
Someone sent this to me a looong time ago! What does everyone think about this collection of "hidden messages?" There's a few references to Paul's "deadly car crash" but there's other weird stuff too.
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=29585
This was originally composed in 2009. It can also be seen on BeatleSpace.
*DISCLAIMER*
This has the potential to freak some people out, I am sure, but do NOT worry about it. That's NOT my intention! I don't encourage anyone to believe Paul's really dead and all that!
Someone sent this to me a looong time ago! What does everyone think about this collection of "hidden messages?" There's a few references to Paul's "deadly car crash" but there's other weird stuff too.
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=29585
10 March, 2010
This Bird Has Lost Her Home?
The song 'Norwegian Wood [This Bird Has Flown]' begins by saying that their relationship is over. In the first part of his story, he mentions seeing her room and he immediately mentions Norwegian wood. Does this imply that the room/home was made of Norwegian wood? [Keep this possibility in mind!]
There's no chair for him to sit in, so he sits on her rug and they drink wine. He tells us that he was "biding his time," which implies he was waiting for something else...and I suppose we can all guess that he was waiting for the talk to end.
She mentions early in the morning that it's time for bed. She's got to get up for work pretty soon! He laughs, telling her that he doesn't have to work tomorrow and therefore didn't need to go to bed yet. He ends up sleeping in her bathtub. I guess we can assume the night did not go as he had planned.
When he wakes up in the morning, she's already gone. He ends with, "so I lit a fire. Isn't it good, Norwegian wood?" Think about this for just a moment in detail...
This is not an invention of mine. It's been a debate among fans about what exactly this all means for a long time. Some people believe that he simply ends the song sitting in front of her fireplace, but others take the ending as though he set her home on fire. Do you have any opinions about this? I DO!
In my opinion, the fireplace explanation makes no sense. Why would he hang out there with her fireplace, and if he did, why wouldn't he tell us what happened when she came back home? It's not logical to me at all. I personally think that he set her home on fire. No, I'm not a pyromaniac. No, John was not crazy. John loved this kind of stuff! He liked writing lyrics that took people by surprise. He also had a VERY wicked sense of humor. Would he actually do something like that? No...but I think that's what he did in the song.
Consider this, all of you who disagree: the song "Run For Your Life" came out on the same album. It's a song in which he tells his girlfriend the following:
*I'd rather see you dead than with another man.
*If I catch you with another man, that's the end, little girl!
*I'm a wicked guy and I was born with a jealous mind.
*I mean everything I've said...I'm determined and I'd rather see you dead!
*RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
Need I say more?
We all know and love these songs, and it's okay! It's good music with crazy words. John had angry and violent moments in his life, that's for sure, but he fought hard for peace once he found peace for himself. It has never occurred to me to be disturbed by these words [even when I was a little kid] so if that's the ONLY reason we're making up stories about a fireplace, we shouldn't. If we really just interpret the lyrics differently, then that's the beauty of variety in the people of the world!
There's no chair for him to sit in, so he sits on her rug and they drink wine. He tells us that he was "biding his time," which implies he was waiting for something else...and I suppose we can all guess that he was waiting for the talk to end.
She mentions early in the morning that it's time for bed. She's got to get up for work pretty soon! He laughs, telling her that he doesn't have to work tomorrow and therefore didn't need to go to bed yet. He ends up sleeping in her bathtub. I guess we can assume the night did not go as he had planned.
When he wakes up in the morning, she's already gone. He ends with, "so I lit a fire. Isn't it good, Norwegian wood?" Think about this for just a moment in detail...
This is not an invention of mine. It's been a debate among fans about what exactly this all means for a long time. Some people believe that he simply ends the song sitting in front of her fireplace, but others take the ending as though he set her home on fire. Do you have any opinions about this? I DO!
In my opinion, the fireplace explanation makes no sense. Why would he hang out there with her fireplace, and if he did, why wouldn't he tell us what happened when she came back home? It's not logical to me at all. I personally think that he set her home on fire. No, I'm not a pyromaniac. No, John was not crazy. John loved this kind of stuff! He liked writing lyrics that took people by surprise. He also had a VERY wicked sense of humor. Would he actually do something like that? No...but I think that's what he did in the song.
Consider this, all of you who disagree: the song "Run For Your Life" came out on the same album. It's a song in which he tells his girlfriend the following:
*I'd rather see you dead than with another man.
*If I catch you with another man, that's the end, little girl!
*I'm a wicked guy and I was born with a jealous mind.
*I mean everything I've said...I'm determined and I'd rather see you dead!
*RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
Need I say more?
We all know and love these songs, and it's okay! It's good music with crazy words. John had angry and violent moments in his life, that's for sure, but he fought hard for peace once he found peace for himself. It has never occurred to me to be disturbed by these words [even when I was a little kid] so if that's the ONLY reason we're making up stories about a fireplace, we shouldn't. If we really just interpret the lyrics differently, then that's the beauty of variety in the people of the world!
02 March, 2010
Yoko Love vs. Yoko Hate
This is an issue that's been going on since the late 60s and 'I've got a feeling' that the debate will never end. I want to make very clear right away that, in this entry, I am not taking a side. I've got opinions, but I'm more curious to look at the two sides in this entry than to state my personal thoughts.
There are racist people in the world. There are people who do not understand and/or appreciate non-traditional art such as Yoko's art. There are many non-personal reasons that people might dislike Yoko Ono...but are there any good reasons to?
This entry was inspired by remarks recently made on Twitter to Sean. First of all, it definitely doesn't make sense to attack Sean. Even if Yoko did the worst thing in the world, it's not Sean...so that doesn't make sense to me.
Okay...the only "good reason" to hate Yoko has nothing to do with her race, the quality of her art, etc., but John fans should be concerned IF they believe she could be abusing her Lennon connection. This is what has caused so much outrage. This is not the first time fans have been angered by John's talents being used commercially, but for some reason, this new car ad has been extremely controversial.
The most intriguing part to me is that Sean himself said: "Having just seen ad I realize why people are mad." This is particularly interesting to me because I have NOT seen the ad. [This is why I'm not sharing any personal opinions. I want to be very fair!] Now...are her motivations financial? Is her intention actually to keep John in the world and to keep exposing his music to new ears? She's done non-music things like this too, for example turning personal art he did for Sean into an entire theme of child products. Is this good? Is this bad? What do you think?
Arguments in favor of Yoko:
She wants to keep John in the world and expose him to potential future fans.
She wants to support a cause in a big way.
She wants to share good things with the world, whether it's his music in a commercial or other things that he did.
Arguments against Yoko:
She using her ex-husband's property without his consent.
She's using John for financial gain.
She's turning his talents into something commercial.
There are many other arguments to be made, but that's a general summary. What do you think? Does she have the right to use him in this way? Do you think he would approve of these sorts of things that she's done? Do you think he would be happy for her because he loved her and she was his wife? Do you think he would have done these things if he were still here? Do you think it's good to make him into something commercial for purposes of exposure and/or promotion? Doesn't his widow and son deserve to benefit from him since he isn't here and they are his family? Do you think it's bad to turn him into something cheap and meaningless? Do you think it's great to hear John during commercial breaks and see his art come to life as child products in stores? I've got my thoughts, but that's not the point...I want to get you thinking! I don't care what you conclude because everyone has their opinions, but I think everyone should be thinking about this in one way or the other.
To Sean: I openly love you, support you, and defend you...
To Yoko: I'm sorry that I'm not taking a side in this blog entry, but I feel it is more important to get people thinking than it is to push my opinions onto others.
There are racist people in the world. There are people who do not understand and/or appreciate non-traditional art such as Yoko's art. There are many non-personal reasons that people might dislike Yoko Ono...but are there any good reasons to?
This entry was inspired by remarks recently made on Twitter to Sean. First of all, it definitely doesn't make sense to attack Sean. Even if Yoko did the worst thing in the world, it's not Sean...so that doesn't make sense to me.
Okay...the only "good reason" to hate Yoko has nothing to do with her race, the quality of her art, etc., but John fans should be concerned IF they believe she could be abusing her Lennon connection. This is what has caused so much outrage. This is not the first time fans have been angered by John's talents being used commercially, but for some reason, this new car ad has been extremely controversial.
The most intriguing part to me is that Sean himself said: "Having just seen ad I realize why people are mad." This is particularly interesting to me because I have NOT seen the ad. [This is why I'm not sharing any personal opinions. I want to be very fair!] Now...are her motivations financial? Is her intention actually to keep John in the world and to keep exposing his music to new ears? She's done non-music things like this too, for example turning personal art he did for Sean into an entire theme of child products. Is this good? Is this bad? What do you think?
Arguments in favor of Yoko:
She wants to keep John in the world and expose him to potential future fans.
She wants to support a cause in a big way.
She wants to share good things with the world, whether it's his music in a commercial or other things that he did.
Arguments against Yoko:
She using her ex-husband's property without his consent.
She's using John for financial gain.
She's turning his talents into something commercial.
There are many other arguments to be made, but that's a general summary. What do you think? Does she have the right to use him in this way? Do you think he would approve of these sorts of things that she's done? Do you think he would be happy for her because he loved her and she was his wife? Do you think he would have done these things if he were still here? Do you think it's good to make him into something commercial for purposes of exposure and/or promotion? Doesn't his widow and son deserve to benefit from him since he isn't here and they are his family? Do you think it's bad to turn him into something cheap and meaningless? Do you think it's great to hear John during commercial breaks and see his art come to life as child products in stores? I've got my thoughts, but that's not the point...I want to get you thinking! I don't care what you conclude because everyone has their opinions, but I think everyone should be thinking about this in one way or the other.
To Sean: I openly love you, support you, and defend you...
To Yoko: I'm sorry that I'm not taking a side in this blog entry, but I feel it is more important to get people thinking than it is to push my opinions onto others.