eppylover ([info]eppylover) wrote,
@ 2005-10-10 21:52:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Eppy vs G Martin - Cyn on Brian & Jules on Yoko

~*~*~ To My Dear Friends Who Believe George Martin is the Fifth Beatle ~*~*~

My brave attempt to sway your opinion is as follows:
I love Sir George Martin. It is my firm conviction that George Martin is an honorary Beatle by virtue of his contribution to their music, which I do agree was utterly essential, and it's entirely within the realm of possibility that they may not have made it without him... however, I feel that Eppy would have found them another (albeit less capable) musical mentor, and would have made sure they became "bigger than Elvis" nonetheless!

It speaks volumes for me that, on a few occasions, George Martin admits that he was contemplating leaving them for a "better" job, with no regrets evident. According to Geoffrey Ellis,
"Once, over a convivial lunch, which happened to follow a frustrating session with the Boys, he burst out to me 'Sometimes, when a reporter asks me for a quote on what the Beatles are really like, I'm tempted to answer: they're still the same stupid arrogant bastards they always were'."
I Should Have Known Better - A Life In Pop Management, Page 51
In contrast to George Martin's statement, even though Brian had often been criticized, taunted, humiliated and treated cruelly by the boys (especially John), he took it in his stride and would never, ever have even dreamed of bad-mouthing them, to anyone, no matter what. George Martin did not have the boys in his heart and soul like Brian Epstein did. Brian lived for and was devoutly dedicated to the Beatles in the same way that (nay, even MORE than) they were supportive of each other. Brian may not have been capable of doing what Martin had done musically, but George Martin would never have been capable of being what Brian was for them, ever, ever, ever.
"I must add that Sir George was very clear in expressing the importance of Brian Epstein in making the Beatles the Beatles
and that when he died, so did the dream -- they all knew it would never be the same."
http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/geomtour.htm
George Martin, Dick James, and Brian Epstein
CLICK PIC FOR LARGER IMAGE
Sir George Martin himself says he would never have taken on the Beatles if it hadn't been for Brian Epstein's constant unshakable belief in them. The Beatles were a part of Brian. And it was proven that Brian was a part of the Beatles when he died, because the Beatles were unable to survive for very long without him.
If that's not being a real Beatle, what is?

As much as I admire George Martin, he was not the Fifth Beatle. I would readily agree to calling him The LIVING Fifth Beatle, how's that for compromise?
George Martin would not have died for them.
And you know damn well that Brian Epstein would have,
no questions asked!!!
It seems to me that people who think anyone else but Brian could possibly be called
a "Fifth Beatle" just aren't Beatle scholars and don't know the full real story.


Here's the post that generated the most replies ever for me:
"Why are you a Brian Epstein fan?"


> 'How is it possible to miss someone you never even met?'
The above question prompted a very personal post from me:
A Strange Maybe Boring Eppylover Bio

And yes, years of fighting what I used to think was an unhealthy obsession, and years of counseling, analysis, etc. could not change this mindset. As if it's pre-determined or mystic or one of those illogical notions. Just keeps bouncing back. I've given up, and given in. Much happier person this way! Something is going to happen... in a few years...

Well, my 16-year-old daughter doesn't think it's very weird -- she thinks it's kinda exciting.



From NCW Movies.com


John & Cynthia
John Lennon's first wife Cynthia Lennon, who releases her tell-all book called John, about her 10-year relationship with Lennon, today (September 27th), says Lennon may have been a lot of things -- but one thing he wasn't was gay. She explains that contrary to popular rumor, he and Beatles manager Brian Epstein never had a homosexual affair.


Brian Epstein
Cynthia writes in her book that, quote, "Claims have been made since that Brian and John did have a gay relationship. Nothing could be further from the truth. John was 100-percent heterosexual and, like most lads at that time, horrified by the idea of homosexuality."

She went on to write that, "The bond between them was one of mutual respect and friendship. Brian could see John's intelligence and distinctive talent. John appreciated Brian's business ability and his ambition for the group."

Cynthia added that: "They both wanted the Beatles to be the biggest thing since Elvis Presley and were hell bent on making it happen."

Brian Epstein died on August 27th, 1967 of an accidental overdose of sleeping pills.

Cynthia Lennon 2005

John and Cynthia Lennon were married from 1962 to 1968.

The book doesn't gloss over Cynthia's disdain for Lennon's treatment of their son Julian, or Lennon's second wife Yoko Ono's resentment towards her and Lennon's Liverpool relatives. She blames Yoko for driving a wedge between John and Julian's budding relationship in the late '70s.


John Charles Julian Lennon
Julian Lennon admitted he's less-than-pleased with the way Yoko has handled his father's legacy:

"You know, I'm truly not happy with the way she handles Dad's memory. I would receive, you know, Christmas presents, which were ties and mugs with Dad's lithographs on, you know, sketches on, and I just thought that was taking it a little too far in the tacky zone, you know?

First and foremost, he was totally against commercialization of work, you know, and I think he'd be probably turning in his grave if he, if he knew what was going on with his work and his art, you know?"


(Post a new comment)


[info]vandonovan
2005-10-11 02:21 am UTC (link)
Julian likes to say "you know" a lot but he is right. It's one thing to sell sketched lithographs to strangers but to your son? That's really tacky.

Anyway, it's totally baffling to me that Billy Preston is coming in #3 on the Fifth Beatle thing. He played on like, what, two songs towards the END of their career? I can see people voting for Stu and Pete in terms of "order" ranking (Pete was the fifth Beatle to join, for instance) but Billy Preston? Give me a break.

*of course, voted for Brian*

(Reply to this)


[info]absolutetwaddle
2005-10-11 02:43 am UTC (link)
Gah, I am so torn. I adore Stu the way you adore Brian. Hang ups are a bitch. :/

I don't see how Julian contains himself from marching up to Mother Ono and slapping the living s$%@ out of her. Oh that's right, her whorde of bodyguards are always in the way. :P Darn.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]eppylover
2005-10-11 03:28 am UTC (link)
Don't worry, Julian, she'll croak long before you do. Don't hold your breath for it to be real soon, though.

Then Sean will be free from the clutches, and maybe the Lennon Brothers will become a class act, ha ha! Remember the Lennon Sisters on the Lawrence Welk Show? Loved Janet when she was a tot! Of course you don't remember them, you're not an old bat like me!!! ;P
---

Ah yes, I can see how some people can be utterly verklempt over Stuart, but it's my sincere feeling that the Beatles would never have made it if Stu had stayed with the group. Just think: Brian would have had the hardest damn time trying to "cute" him up to match the group ... just like it wasn't possible to do with poor Pete ... and the group would not have had that certain consistency that made them so commercially acceptable.

And to be a "Fifth Beatle" you have to have been a Beatle all the way to the toppermost of the poppermost.

Just because someone's a real stud that you can get crazy over, and was a real close friend with a tragic story, doesn't mean he'd be a real "Fifth Beatle," ya know? Just doesn't meet all the criteria, like the rest of the people on the list.

Neil comes REAL REAL close in his devotion and dedication, but he lacks the genius they all had. And I'm certain the boys would still have become world-famous without either Neil's or Stu's input in their lives.

Brian had the genius; it just lay in a different, yet crucial, necessary, essential (gotta be redundant here, heee) area. Plus the devotion.

And the Beatles couldn't survive without him just as they wouldn't have survived as a group if it had been John, Paul, George or Ringo who died instead of Brian.

Anyone else on that list (or any other "5th Beatles" list) dying wouldn't have affected their longevity as a group.

Yes, they were probably breaking up anyway ... but the school of thought prevails that it's possible Brian could have patched things up enough to keep them from splitting ... after all, he was the glue that had kept them together all the previous years and he was constantly working out ways for them to stay together by facilitating a lot of separate activities for them ... movie roles, etc., and it's been said they would have begun recording separately, but coming together once or twice a year for a Beatles LP ... and if they had broken up, you know it would not have been such a messy divorce.

Even if I did think Brian was a "knob," like someone remarked in beatlepics once (made me giggle), I still would believe he was a true Beatle. It's just logical.

---

A related comment -- I sure wish we had films of Stu available.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]absolutetwaddle
2005-10-12 02:34 am UTC (link)
I concur that I wish there were videos or audios of Stu avaliable. :( That's real love, loving someone when you've never heard them speak or watched them in motion.

Don't worry, Julian, she'll croak long before you do. Don't hold your breath for it to be real soon, though. You're right, evil never dies. :P

After checking out hte MBE site, I have to say that Brian should be in the running for the fifth beatle, now if only had had played a geetar....:D or a tamborine! hell it worked for stevie nicks.



(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]eppylover
2005-10-12 03:30 am UTC (link)
HE DID.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]eppylover
2005-10-12 03:42 am UTC (link)
Well, my analysts/counselors have pounded this "fact" into me for years that -- if you have never known/interacted with a person, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be in love with him. You are in love with an IMAGE you've concocted in your head.

That makes sense, it's logical, but... but...

Every single thing I've learned about him has not affected my feelings for him. I only wish I could have actually met him, so this "image" I'm in love with could be done away with!

However, I've got a solid sneaky feeling even meeting him would not have worked. Like I said in another post, there's something "mystical" (??? I don't believe in that shit!!!) going on, and it shall be revealed to me a few years from now. I've given up and given in! Let's follow this obsession to its end. It's preordained. I can tell, because giving in to it has made me finally feel at peace with it somehow.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…