tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-184061712024-03-12T18:36:39.906-05:00The Badfinger Bookßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-22478983993431915062013-04-30T17:00:00.002-05:002017-03-20T15:41:25.271-05:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijbmF8V9qmCCx2TMq-aCirwNa_QRZ491dtd21LI-imlKFZkfpoTz8F3iWN4IpMdf2llS3KgP9Yvm9NZYGW_t8fzlbQsdiY2JpG6350qyTX_qLuv9lmmmHCaYfU3-PtcRFL1asQyA/s1600/4798442.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijbmF8V9qmCCx2TMq-aCirwNa_QRZ491dtd21LI-imlKFZkfpoTz8F3iWN4IpMdf2llS3KgP9Yvm9NZYGW_t8fzlbQsdiY2JpG6350qyTX_qLuv9lmmmHCaYfU3-PtcRFL1asQyA/s320/4798442.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Swansea Councilman David Phillips and Petera Ham-Eddie unveil plaque tribute to Pete Ham</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><span style="font-size: large;">PETE HAM HONORED IN WALES</span> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"> Badfinger's
Pete Ham was honored on 27 April 2013 with a Blue Plaque at the
Swansea Railway Station in Swansea, Wales. Located on Ivey Place, a
location where Pete often practiced with his band The Iveys in the
1960s, the plaque represents a "place of historical interest" for
visitors throughout the United Kingdom.</span><br />
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;">AMong the attendees was Olivia Harrison,
widow of Beatle George Harrison. She said George spoke about Pete Ham
"with fondness as a friend and with respect for his beautiful songs ...
I have had the pleasure of meeting Pete's family and,
although I did not know Pete himself, his lyrics and recordings embody a
gentle spirit and tender heart."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;">Unveiled
by Pete's daughter, Petera Ham-Eddie, she spoke of the father who died
from suicide a month before she was born. “It was hard for him because
he was a quiet person, he was more into the music and his friends and
family.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;">"He
was very sensitive rather than being involved with all the ins and
outs of the business side of it. I think that was in some ways his
downfall. I always remember my mum talking about him from a
young age. She would always try to speak about him, because I was so
like him when I was young.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;">Petera, now 37 and expecting a child herself, says she’s keen to share her father’s music and legacy with her
own child when it comes along.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;">“I’ll tell my baby what a kind and caring person
he was and how talented he was through his music. I’ll tell my
child how Dad seemed to care maybe a bit too much sometimes. And I’ll
just talk about how I’m just so very proud of him, and happy that his
legacy is still so strong and that people are still so fond of his
music.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">This article was derived from <i>Wales Online</i> and the <i>BBC</i>. </span></span>ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-46201318598952345302012-12-05T19:42:00.001-06:002017-03-20T15:41:17.280-05:00<h1>
</h1>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqPH01vMRpEoximCtE2VVHiOuCyssuO5l_1VdOIvQKR9jaRlnVJ60gxrWy3mZMgy-1qr5LV8DLHF85mlEYUBuVpel5fS81tnZojWficT6fUPoSOVqMn0u3eXsJHfheBwRp0p4xnw/s1600/desktop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqPH01vMRpEoximCtE2VVHiOuCyssuO5l_1VdOIvQKR9jaRlnVJ60gxrWy3mZMgy-1qr5LV8DLHF85mlEYUBuVpel5fS81tnZojWficT6fUPoSOVqMn0u3eXsJHfheBwRp0p4xnw/s1600/desktop.jpg" /></a></div>
<h1>
<span style="color: #cfe2f3;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> Keyhole Street: Demos 1966-67<span style="color: #d0e0e3;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span> </span></h1>
<h1>
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cfe2f3;">I am going to temporarily divert from the usual topic here, <span style="font-size: small;">which is</span> focus<span style="font-size: small;">ing</span> on Badfinger in print, to help promote a worthwhile Badfinger-related music project.<br /><br />An official release of Pete Ham demo/solo material is again in the works. This will be the first release of such material since the 1990s, when "7 Park Avenue" and "Golders Green" were released in 1997 and 1999 respectively. This retrospect titled "Keyhole Street: Demos 1966-67" is scheduled for release early next year. The project was recently announced by Ham's daughter, Petera:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: #ffd966;"><i>"My father was Pete Ham of Badfinger. He recorded many demos in his lifetime. I am so grateful to PledgeMusic for allowing me to share a set of his demos with you. Any support you can give to this project is very much appreciated.<br /><br />"I was born just after he died, but my mother, his friends and loved ones have all told me of what a wonderful, kind, gentle and trustworthy man he was. As we all know, that can be heard in his music. These early demos are from 1966-67, many of which were recorded when he was still a teenager and showcase his natural talent and all of the sides of his personality.<br /><br />"I think you’re all really going to enjoy these songs. We are offering many other fun and exclusive items for you – the dedicated fans. Please spread the word about my father. He deserves a chance to be heard. He was a good man. And thank you again – from the bottom of my heart."</i> Petera Ham</span><br /><br /><span style="color: #d0e0e3;">For information on how you can pre-order this double CD set, please visit:<br /><a href="http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/peteham">http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/peteham</a> <br /><br />For information on other activities coming up, including a dedication to Ham in his hometown of Swansea, Wales, please visit:<br /><a href="http://www.peteham.net/">http://www.peteham.net/</a></span></span></span></h1>
ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-54480523592155045472011-10-22T13:07:00.016-05:002017-03-20T15:41:08.074-05:00<span style="color: cyan;"><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Strong Evidence of Quote Tampering in Joey's "Badfinger and Beyond" </span></span></span> <br />
<span style="color: cyan;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: cyan;">Joey's book had another recent review on Amazon, where Morten Vindberg details his disappointment with it. A portion of Cimino's response is below:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffffcc; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">"... As for the stir about questio</span><span style="color: #ffffcc; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">ns and ans</span><span style="color: #ffffcc; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">wers there were many interviews used to create this book and subject matter was discussed many tim</span><span style="color: #ffffcc; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">es over. The passage that Bill/J</span><span style="color: #ffffcc; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">ace/whatever his/her real name is</span><span style="color: #ffffcc; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> refers to is taken from two interviews on the same subject."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: cyan;">Apparently Cimino thinks he’s being clever by inferring "Jace Lee Dakota" and I are the same person. We are not and I have no clue who Dakota is. I have no qualms about criticizing his book in my own name. Now, regarding his response - the evidence I see of manipulation is clearly not the result of “many interviews”, as I laid out the evidence in my previous blog titled "Badfinger and Beyond Credibility."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: cyan;">In the first case, from Cimino’s raw interview first published on his website in 2002, Joey's answer and Cimino's questions were split in two sections. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: cyan;">In the book that came out in 2011, under the topic of Pete Ham's song "Take It All", Cimino's questions are condensed and take on a different meaning.</span><br />
<div align="center">
<span style="color: #ccffff;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #ffffcc; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> </span><br />
<span style="color: cyan;">Joey’s response to Cimino is basically the same quote, with rough language edited away. Cimino has changed the frame of reference now for Joey's earlier answer. In "Badfinger And Beyond", Cimino queried for clarification with his question whether Pete and Joey had argued over Pete being asked to duet with George Harrison at the Concert for Bangla Desh. The general topic Cimino is deriving this from is in the "Without You" book, where Pete's girlfriend is quoted regarding Pete's sensitivity to jealous taunting by Joey and Kathie. Pete responded to the taunts by writing "Take It All." The lyrics seem to bear this out.</span><br />
<span style="color: cyan;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: cyan;">Yet, Cimino, armed with Joey's frenzied defense of his character, decides he just can't help but take advantage of Joey's raw emotional outburst. Cimino makes a fateful decision. He alters his question for the new book. Is this really such a big deal? Of course it is. This evidence shows Cimino trying to improve our impressions of Joey through alterations.</span><br />
<span style="color: cyan;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: cyan;">Instead of giving a reasonable response on Amazon, Cimino defends himself by making a bogus claim, that Joey supposedly happened to respond the same for two different interviews. This is baloney. If Cimino isn't going to be honest in defending his book, does this mean he wasn't honest when he was writing his book? I agree with Morton Vindberg’s comment on Amazon: "I'm afraid I can't be sure of what to believe."</span></div>
ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-31990856868070226172011-10-17T16:47:00.005-05:002017-03-20T15:40:59.283-05:00<span style="color: #99ff99; font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Joey Author Gets Defensive</span></span><span style="color: #99ff99;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">As I expected, the author of Joey’s book (what I like to call Badfinger and Beyond Credibility) is attacking the character of people who are criticizing his work. For a person who is </span><span style="color: #99ff99; font-style: italic;">incessantly</span><span style="color: #99ff99;"> critical of </span><span style="color: #99ff99; font-weight: bold;">“Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger”</span><span style="color: #99ff99;">, he is certainly one thin-skinned dude when his own product is critiqued. I found the short exchange on Amazon.com between he and Jace Lee Dakota fairly amusing. Here are a few interesting tidbits on the author’s end:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99; font-style: italic;">“Throughout the time spent writing this book I did plenty of fact checking, and talked to many many musicians who worked with Joey and came to the conclusion that what I wrote/printed in this book is correct.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">This isn’t what he claimed in the book. There he claims he simply took Joey’s word on everything. Why is he now changing his story? And who are these unnamed musicians? And what inside knowledge do these “musicians” have regarding Badfinger’s politics? Those are all rhetorical questions, of course, because there are no legitimate answers.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">Oh, and this is hilarious:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99; font-style: italic;"> “Remember, harsh words spoken in anger have no lasting worth except to the fools who cherish their own narcissism.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">This nonsense is expressed like it’s some gem from Confucius, where actually it’s Cimino quoting himself (he put this sentence up on his website with himself as the source). I would consider anyone who quotes himself as the epitome of a narcissist, wouldn’t you? Hey, I just created a really cool saying, too: </span><span style="color: #99ff99; font-style: italic;">“He who interviews himself interviews a fool”</span><span style="color: #99ff99;">. You can check the author’s website for the interview.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99; font-style: italic;">“You seem to have an axe to grind and yet hide behind a false name.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">The Molland camp makes this claim quite often … maybe a little <span style="font-style: italic;">too</span> often. What is their obsession with “false names”? Guilt perhaps? Or maybe they are simply incredulous that they are wildly outnumbered by people who can see through them? And why do they feel anyone who refuses to believe Joey’s baloney must have an axe to grind? Joey never tied my shoelaces together so I have no axe to grind with him – or with this Cimino guy either. But they are <span style="font-style: italic;">still</span> being publicly deceitful and need to be called out on it. It just cooks my innards when dummies think they are being clever.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">At any rate, the author is a hypocrite on this subject (just like Kathie Molland and Randy Justesen were before him, both of whom were caught using pseudonyms in spite of their denials). One of the handful of negative reviews on Amazon for the “Without You” book was written by Cimino, although he uses the name “a customer” there. It is the </span><span style="color: #99ff99; font-style: italic;">exact</span><span style="color: #99ff99;"> same review he proudly touted as his own and displayed on his website from the same era – all the way down to his mistaken death date/year for Pete Ham.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">I feel a little guilty taking this Cimino guy to task, but he is such a boastful clown. He really should write an autobiography next, where he can interview and quote himself throughout and it won’t look so damn creepy. Or should I say narcissistic?</span>ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-49213207561501184582011-08-15T22:18:00.007-05:002017-03-20T15:40:50.955-05:00<span style="color: #ffff66; font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Badfinger and Beyond Credibility</span></span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99;">Well, it almost happened ... kind of. One of the five authors I listed here four years ago as a potential Badfinger biographer, Michael Cimino, has come forth with a biography of Joey Molland ... sort of. It really comes across as an extended magazine interview with Joey, with small contributions from a few others. If the reader is the sort who likes a fireside chat with a yarn spinner, he should be happy. Joey talks about what inspired some of his music and lyrics and adds memories of recording sessions. OK, some of this is interesting.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99;">But, as predicted, beyond the musical anecdotes the book falls flat. One</span><span style="color: #ffff99; font-style: italic;"> simply cannot</span><span style="color: #ffff99;"> write a Badfinger book around Joey's storytelling and expect it to make much sense. None of Joey's "facts" are verified, and there are no opposing voices contesting his memories. A perfect example is Joey being quoted here (again) saying Bill Collins suggested Pete and Tom's respective song parts be put together to form "Without You." On the contrary, Tom Evans said it was Pete's suggestion to combine the parts, and Bill Collins never laid claim to such an event (and Collins </span><span style="color: #ffff99; font-weight: bold;">would</span><span style="color: #ffff99;"> </span><span style="color: #ffff99; font-weight: bold;">have</span><span style="color: #ffff99;"> laid claim to that if it was true). All one reads here is Joey blowing smoke in an attempt to obscure the songwriting origins.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99;">Another example is Joey's muddled and confusing description of events in 1974. As usual, he gets his timelines all out of whack and claims to have talked to WB Publishing President Ed Silvers about a breach-of-contract lawsuit before a lawsuit even existed, and then in the same breath claims his wife called WB and they said "everything is fine" with the contracts. And of course Joey touts how he worked out a deal with the devil, Stan Polley, because Joey (who admits he is no sort of businessman) offered Polley a deal he couldn't refuse. C'mon! I am reminded of Chamberlain proudly waving the peace treaty he signed with Hitler. Joey simply was never in Polley's league when it comes to deceit, manipulation and theft. Any deal Polley made with Joey was equivalent to snake oil. And in many, many places, Joey admits he really doesn't know certain details and makes clumsy guesses about facts that are clearly described and evidenced in Matovina's book.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99;">If this isn't bad enough, and Joey's memories always are, the author manages to muddle things as well. Cimino apparently decided to change his questions to Joey's interview answers. Joey's quoted answers also change slightly, though not as much. One example:</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99;">From Cimino's 2002 interview</span>
<br />
<span style="color: #99ffff;">Michael: </span><span style="color: #99ffff; font-style: italic;">There is a story floating around that you used to tease Pete about him getting him to do the solo spot with George during the concert for Bangladesh on “Here Comes The Sun." Did the band tease him about that?</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ffff;">Joey: </span><span style="color: #99ffff; font-style: italic;">No. No, that’s a figment of somebody’s imagination, that is.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ffff;">Michael: </span><span style="color: #99ffff; font-style: italic;">The rumored story claims that that was a wedge between the two of you. That Pete got to go up front stage and you didn’t.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ffff;">Joey: </span><span style="color: #99ffff; font-style: italic;">That’s absolute bullshit. I swear to God, see if you could find anybody around us, anybody that recalls Pete and I arguing about that, anybody.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99;">From Cimino's 2011 publication ...</span>
<br />
<span style="color: #99ffff;">MC: </span><span style="color: #99ffff; font-style: italic;">This is the song that started speculation over you and Pete arguing at Bangladesh over "Here Comes The Sun."</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ffff;">Joey: </span><span style="color: #99ffff; font-style: italic;">No. No, that’s a figment of somebody’s imagination. That’s absolute bullshit. I swear to God, see if you could find anybody around us, anybody that recalls Pete and I arguing about that.</span> <span style="color: #ffff99;">(Here it sounds like Joey is refuting that they argued at Bangladesh, versus them arguing at all. And to the best of my knowledge, there is no rumor that they "argued" but only that Joey and Kathie teased Pete after the concert)</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99;">This brings into question the integrity of the author and the accuracy of even Joey's unreliable meanderings. And in order to cut off the criticism before it begins, Cimino claims he has been verbally assaulted through the years by "fowl" mouthed ne'er-do-wells who threatened him about his book, although he himself has risen above the negativity. </span><span style="color: #ffff99; font-style: italic;">If he'd really risen above negativity he wouldn't be mentioning it. </span><span style="color: #ffff99;">Instead he probably hopes to label anyone who criticizes this book as one of those bad guys. I'm sorry but that bird won't fly. Cimino's book will rise or fall on its own merits. And for a guy who was delightedly critical of </span><span style="color: #ffff99; font-weight: bold;">"Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger"</span><span style="color: #ffff99;">, he'd better get used to some criticism himself because he has several weaknesses with this effort.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99;">I predicted this book would be nonsensical mulch if it was ever published. I stand by that.</span>ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-33304219022069142992011-04-29T16:40:00.007-05:002017-03-20T15:40:43.806-05:00<span style="color: rgb(255 , 255 , 255); font-size: 130%; font-weight: bold;">Shallow Questions for a Shallow Man </span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">For those unaware, </span><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304113116_1" style="border-bottom: 2px dotted rgb(54 , 99 , 136); color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255); cursor: pointer;">Joey Molland</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> has launched a softball "</span><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304113116_2" style="border-bottom: 2px dotted rgb(54 , 99 , 136); color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255); cursor: pointer;">Badfinger</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">" </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">website. Although the home page header reads "Original Badfinger" the site is </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">more about promoting Joey's current touring schedule and Beatlefest </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">appearances. When located on </span><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304113116_3" style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">Google</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> the site reads </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255); font-style: italic;">"Badfinger: Original Site of </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255); font-style: italic;">Joey Molland and Rock Band Badfinger"</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> (his priority being in the sequence). </span>
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">There are several </span><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304113116_4" style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">dropdown menus</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> on the front page; some are non functional </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">while others link to rather mundane Wikipedia-based biographies.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">The most interesting feature, however, is a button that says </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255); font-style: italic;">"Ask Joey: Click To </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255); font-style: italic;">Ask Him Anything."</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> Assuming this to be a challenge to truly ask him "anything", </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">I decided a few weeks ago to oblige with a few questions. Below is the result ...</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(255 , 255 , 255); font-weight: bold;">QUESTION:</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> If there was no basis in Kathie getting involved in Badfinger's </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">political affairs (something you have said often in the past) then how do you </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">explain Pete's comments and reaction when he quit the band in 1974?</span>
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(255 , 255 , 255); font-weight: bold;">
<br />JOEY:</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> (silence)</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(255 , 255 , 255); font-weight: bold;">QUESTION:</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> Can you describe the publishing agreement/contract between </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">Badfinger/Iveys members? Was it ever written down? Was there a time limit </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">regarding it?</span>
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(255 , 255 , 255); font-weight: bold;">
<br />JOEY:</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> (silence)</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(255 , 255 , 255); font-weight: bold;">QUESTION:</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> I was told in 2007 that your Billy James book would be out by 2008. </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">Seeing as it is now 2011, will we ever be seeing this book?</span>
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(255 , 255 , 255); font-weight: bold;">
<br />JOEY:</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> (silence)</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">Predictably, this button is mislabeled. You're not actually supposed to ask him </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">"anything." Rather, you're supposed to ask him about his favorite color or which </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">guitar picks he favors, as evidenced by the questions he </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255); font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">does</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> answer. </span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">Oh well. I thought maybe - </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255); font-style: italic;">just maybe</span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);"> - Joey had finally grown some cahoonas and </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">was prepared to answer tough questions. Most people have already noticed that he </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">has avoided every BBC documentary for the past 25 years. In fact, aside from the </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">"Behind The Music" VH1 episode, Joey has avoided every single independent </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">biographical project ever made. Apparently he only likes to answer when he </span><span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">controls the questions.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">Hey Joey, what is your favorite ice cream flavor?</span>
<br />
<span style="color: rgb(51 , 255 , 255);">Eh, nevermind. I'd rather go watch paint dry.</span>ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-58552423045979432522010-07-27T20:02:00.010-05:002017-03-20T15:39:59.534-05:00<span style="color: #ffff66; font-size: 130%;"><b><span style="color: #66ffff;">When Pete Rejoined Badfinger</span> <span style="color: rgb(102 , 255 , 255);">in 1974</span></b></span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ffff;">Now to address a third misrepresentation from Joey on Pete Ham rejoining Badfinger in 1974. The following is from the same Interview Haven interview that is linked in my previous articles. The emphasis is mine. </span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff66;">Joey Molland:</span> <span style="color: #ffff99;">"Anyway, we went out right away, this is in 1974, we went out right away and found a keyboard player that could sing and duplicate the parts. Bob Jackson could actually play the synthesizer and bend it, you know, bend the strings so we could play our guitar parts together like Peter and I used to do. Anyway, it felt great and a couple of weeks later, we had the band and the show together for the tour. <i>Pete came to one of the rehearsals and I think he was really surprised and then he came back and he wanted back in the band</i>. And he said, 'I like to be back in the band. I won’t be like I was before. I won’t be stubborn and I’ll just stand at the back of the stage and just sing my songs.'"</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ffff;">The above scenario paints a very different picture from facts that are presented in the Without You book. According to Joey, Pete was impressed with the band's sound after Bob Jackson's joining and wanted to rejoin based on this.
<br />John Ham, Pete's brother who was actually with him during the time he was out of the group, presents information that Joey obviously wasn't privy to.
</span>
<br />
<span style="color: #33ffff;">John Ham:</span> <span style="color: #ffff99;">"Pete had found this remote country cottage where he was going to build his own home studio and write songs. He seemed quite pleased. Then one day he told me he's been contacted by someone from Warner Brothers and they said they weren't interested in the Badfinger band if Pete left. They said 'If he goes, or he goes, or he goes, fine. But if you go, no contract.' Pete was really upset. He felt he owed the rest of the band a living. He was afraid that if the whole thing folded, he'd be to blame."</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ccffff;">Anne Herriot, who was Pete's girlfriend at the time:</span> <span style="color: #99ff99;">"It was Pete who Warner Brothers wanted. Pete told me Warner's wanted him back in the band."
</span>
<br />
<span style="color: #ccffff;">So based on John and Anne's memories of events, Pete didn't want to rejoin Badfinger. He was "quite pleased" at the prospect of a solo career. And when he was told WB would rescind its support of Badfinger without him, he was "really upset." He didn't want to be the cause of sinking the band so he went back - reluctantly. He didn't get goosepimply at listening to a rehearsal of the new Joey-controlled Badfinger, as Joey would like people to believe, but he made a decision that would assist the band and yet would derail his personal ambitions.
<br />
<br />As with the two previous articles from <i>Interview Haven</i>, this is all par-for-the-course for Joey. In the first article he intentionally <i>twists</i> the facts, in the second article he intentionally <i>omits</i> facts, and here he simply <i>doesn't know</i> all the facts but acts as though he does. No wonder journalist Bill DeYoung said that following Joey's Badfinger story is like interpreting an "impressionist road map" ... and it is also no wonder that no publisher has ever touched a proposed book by Molland.</span>ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-72548462284949765882010-04-04T18:07:00.015-05:002017-03-20T15:39:50.649-05:00<b><span style="color: #ffff66; font-size: 180%;">The Marshall Meeting </span></b>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99;">During Joey Molland’s recent "Interview Haven" article he mangled timelines, made wild declarations, and suggested cause-and-effect results for events that happened in a completely different order. It is such a complete mess that it is nearly impossible to untangle. Please refer to the article for direct quotes.</span>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://interviewhaven.com/Joey_Molland_Badfinger.html">http://interviewhaven.com/Joey_Molland_Badfinger.html</a>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99;">Joey has claimed in the past that Badfinger’s manager Bill Collins came back from a trip to America around August 1974 reporting some aspect of a Warner Brothers contract was in jeopardy (there were several contracts.) If true, Collins, who probably didn't understand any details, would likely have been referring to the fact that WB's publishing division claimed to have unitlaterally terminated its contract with the band. This was due to missing escrow advance funds originally to be held by Stan Polley as Badfinger's representative. The band members later met in the office of music agent Barry Marshall, who was to be involved in the band's forthcoming British tour. Joey has claimed he asked his wife Kathie to contact WB in America to verify if there was a problem with the contract. He claims Kathie contacted him while he was at the meeting and told him “everything was ‘OK.’” He repeated this to the group. Pete Ham went into a rage about Kathie's involvement regarding her “managing” the group and he quit on the spot.
<br />
<br />This Marshall meeting was pivotal in Badfinger's history. It is important to chronicle what actually transpired for any reader to understand where things went wrong. Joey's intentional and unintentional misleading statements are addressed below ...
<br /><span style="color: #ff9966;">(1)</span> Joey is claiming the album "Wish You Were Here" came out before this meeting. In fact, the album was not released until months later.
<br /><span style="color: #ff9966;">(2)</span> Joey is claiming the WYWH album was "selling like mad." In fact, the album reached #149 on Billboard after six weeks of distribution. It was then pulled from the market.</span>
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff99;"><span style="color: #ff9966;">(3)</span> Joey is implying he had conversations with WB executives near the time of this meeting regarding their future lawsuit. He previously only said he received "a telex" from WB that everything was "OK."
<br /><span style="color: #ff9966;">(4)</span> Joey claims WB's publishing didn't know how the escrow money disappeared, which is wrong. WB had given the money to Polley and he was being uncommunicative as to its whereabouts. Their issue was to learn where the money was being held.
<br /><span style="color: #ff9966;">(5)</span> Joey claims his announcement to the band involved WB's lawsuit. However, there was no lawsuit at this time. The lawsuit was filed several months later when WB had exhausted all other avenues. At this time, WB had only stated that it was "terminating" its publishing contract with the band (page 248 in the book).
<br /><span style="color: #ff9966;">(6)</span> Joey implies this one phone call from Kathie Molland to be Pete's single cause for resigning. Of course, this makes no sense on the face of it. Joey consistently denies the "Kathie issue," although she, herself, admitted to antagonizing Pete and the band on many occasions. It is clear that Pete's outburst was the culmination of years of frustration with Kathie.
<br />
<br />As usual, Joey wants to tweak a story in such a manner that everyone else was wrong, Bill Collins was wrong, WB was wrong, Pete Ham was wrong ... everybody except for himself and Kathie.
<br />
<br />At any rate, the remainder of the "Interview Haven" article includes Joey misrepresenting Pete rejoining the group. More on this later.</span>ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-43732333802069500662010-04-02T20:12:00.014-05:002017-03-20T15:39:42.066-05:00<div align="center">
<b><span style="color: #33ff33; font-size: 180%;">Who Wrote the song "Without You? </span></b><b><span style="color: #99ff99;"><span style="color: #33ff33; font-size: 180%;"> </span></span></b></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="color: #99ff99;"><span style="font-size: 100%;">Joey is at it again, using his trademark combination of subterfuge and poor memory to muddy Badfinger's history. If you read his interview with "Interview Haven" </span><span style="font-size: 100%;">and were confused by it, allow me to untangle his mess. Please refer to the article for direct quotes.</span></span></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="color: #99ff99; font-size: 100%;"><a href="http://interviewhaven.com/Joey_Molland_Badfinger.html">http://interviewhaven.com/Joey_Molland_Badfinger.html</a></span></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="color: #99ff99; font-size: 100%;">The song "Without You" was originally sections from two different songs that were written by Pete Ham and Tom Evans. At Pete's suggestion, they combined the sections to create the final song. This has been the official corroborated story of "Without You" for the past 40 years. Now, Joey wants to alter history.</span></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="color: #99ff99; font-size: 100%;">Joey is now asserting that it was manager Bill Collins who suggested putting the two halves of the song together, and that this was done in the studio when the band was recording their album <i>No Dice</i>. This is quite typical of Joey and it is a case where I do <i>not</i> believe his poor memory is the culprit. He is attempting to confuse the songwriting of "Without You" because of the royalties distribution of the song. In the 1970s, Tom Evans said: <i><span style="color: #ffff66;">"My song was OK. The verse was a bit like "Help!" but Pete fell in love with the chorus. He said 'I'd like to try that bit on a song I have and see what you think.'"</span></i> (Badfinger book page 99) Bill Collins <b>never once</b> made any claim even remotely close to Joey's statement - and Collins would have had good reason to make such a claim if it were true. But he didn't.</span></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="color: #99ff99; font-size: 100%;">Regarding putting the “song together” in the studio, it's possible it took the band two hours to record the song or for other musicians to learn their parts, but they didn't "put that together." The song was already complete. Even the arrangement was complete, as is evidenced by the two early demo versions that subsequently have been released, and Matovina's book also makes mention of a home band version done prior to entering any recording studios.</span></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="color: #99ff99; font-size: 100%;">Again, this is Joey's revisionist history and an attempt to justify the distribution of the song's publishing royalties. You see, although Pete and Tom <i>wrote</i> the song, Joey gets a cut of the royalties because of a suspect verbal agreement the band had in the 1960s to share publishing revenue. The agreement was never committed to paper and the divisions were never clear, but the estates for Pete and Tom decided not to fight the issue in 1985 and divisions for "Without You" have been in force ever since. It is a very lucrative song and it makes sense the other band members fought for a piece of it. Is it fair? Of course not. Pete's and Tom's children are being forced to share revenue generated by their fathers' creativity with people who performed on a single recording of the song 40 years ago.</span></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="color: #99ff99;">Because Joey is the last man standing (Badfinger-wise) he believes that anything he says should be accepted without challenge. But his attempt to diminish Pete and Tom for the purpose of justifying his claim to "Without You" is simply shameless.</span></div>
ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-42351685313793022082008-10-10T20:12:00.003-05:002017-03-20T15:39:32.327-05:00<b><span style="color: #66ffff; font-size: 130%;">The New York Times Says </span></b>
<br />
<b><span style="color: #66ffff; font-size: 130%;">"Without You" In High Demand</span></b>
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: 130%;"></span></b>
<span style="color: #99ffff;">Columnist Mick Sussman of the New York Times wrote an article for the newspaper's September 8, 2008 Sunday edition in which he lists several books that are going for high prices on the Internet:</span>
<br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: #ffffcc;">"A recent search on Amazon, sorting by year, genre and price, turned up 99 biographies with paperback editions published in 2000 selling for over $100, including “Seth Green” ($201.88 and up), Elina and Leah Furman’s “unauthorized biography” of the actor who played Dr. Evil’s son in the “Austin Powers” movies, and “Without You” ($290 and up, with a CD), Dan Matovina’s group portrait of the Welsh power-pop band Badfinger."</span>
</i>
<br />
<span style="color: #99ffff;">Sussman credits these high prices not only because of availability or for some collector's showcase, but because of what these books contain; first-source and jam-packed information on subjects where alternatives are otherwise difficult or impossible to find.</span>
<br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: #ffffcc;">"The new strategy involves a selective embrace of e-commerce, focused mainly on a category of book that scarcely existed before the Internet — books you might call “rare but not collectible.” These are books sought after not as artifacts or for resale value, but for their content — often concerning subjects with appeal to fervent communities of interest."</span>
</i>
<br />
<span style="color: #99ffff;">To read the entire article (back issues and archives) you may need to subscribe to the NY Times online.</span>ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-82825393550081908652008-08-01T23:33:00.012-05:002017-03-20T15:39:21.603-05:00<span style="color: yellow; font-size: 130%;"><b>More Molland Nonsense </b></span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff66;">This isn't the first time this has happened nor will it be the last, but the author of a recent newspaper article was duped by Joey Molland. This article was positively riddled with inaccuracies, thanks to Joey. The following is the most noteworthy blather that is either direct quotes from Joey or paraphrases by reporter Ted Shaw. A link to the article is too long for this format, but it can be found by Googling "The Windsor Star" and "Badfinger."</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">(1) <i>"Without much prompting, Molland will sound off at length on the subject of the band's demise. He reserves most of his ire for journalist Dan Matovina, whose unauthorized biography, Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger, is the only book to attempt to chronicle the band's history."</i>
</span>
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff66;">The book is only singularly "unauthorized" by Joey Molland. Mike Gibbins, Bill Collins, the Ham Estate and the Evans Estate never labelled the book in such a manner (especially in light of the fact that all of those parties contributed to the book). And as I have often stated in the past, the bulk of official "authorized" biographies that I have read are fluff pieces, tailored to keep the biographical subjects happy rather than to tell the truth.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">(2) <i>"Matovina assembled his history from third-party interviews of those who knew or worked with Badfinger. Molland did not co-operate, and blames Matovina for cultivating vicious rumours. 'I wish someone would just tell the truth in print,' he said."</i></span><i> </i>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff66;">Joey's convoluted and inconsistent Badfinger anecdotes are the reason he can't get anyone to write his "truth" for him. But foremost, one need only read the Foreward of the book to know that Matovina did not "assemble his history from third-party interviews." Every member of the band had been interviewed by Matovina personally (with the exception of Pete Ham who died early on). Joey and his wife were both interviewed by Matovina in the late 1970s for other publications, and this material was later utilized in the book. Did you mention any of this to Ted Shaw, Joey?</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">(3) <i>"One outright lie, he claimed, was the suggestion that Molland's wife, Kathie, hastened Badfinger's demise. In a scenario that sounds like it was plucked from the mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap, it was alleged that Ham quit the band in 1974 because of Kathie Molland's increasing influence."</i>
</span>
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff66;">The motivation for Pete Ham's resignation is hardly "alleged." In front of several witnesses, Pete clearly stated that Kathie Molland's meddling was the reason for his resignation. Joey even stated as much in DISCoveries Magazine in 1991: "Well, Pete stands up and says 'I don't want Kathie managing this band! I'm leaving.'" Did you mention this to Ted Shaw, Joey? Or are you trying to sell a new story these days?</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">(4) <i>"Molland denies his wife had any involvement. On the contrary, it was Ham who created the rift by striking up a solo deal with Badfinger's manager at the time, Stan Polley."</i></span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff66;">According to every quoted source, Pete never sought any solo deal. Stan Polley sought a solo deal for Pete during the brief period after he had quit the band. There is no indication Pete was even aware of what Polley was doing at the time. For Joey to now claim Pete created a rift in the band by seeking a solo deal is beyond incredible.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">(5) <i>"'I f***ing deny it all and challenge you to find any f***ing evidence my wife called any agents or did any business for us,' Molland said. 'I'd f***ing bet you $1,000 right now to find anything that backs that up.'"</i></span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff66;">Joey admitted in Discoveries Magazine that it was a telephone call his wife made to Warner Brothers in L.A. and that her past inquiries into the band's business prompted Pete's resignation. Kathie Molland takes credit for doing this during her extensive interviews for the Molland-endorsed video documentary, along with bragging about all sorts of other business intrusions. Good golly, Joey, the evidence is right from your very own mouths! You may send the $1,000 to my Paypal account</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #99ff99;">(6) <i>"In fact, Molland and his wife are both working on memoirs which one day, he promised, will set the record straight."</i></span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff66;">Straight, like this article is straight? Anyway, The Mollands have been making this claim for 20 years and they have yet to release any such memoirs. All of their projects have fallen flat and the reason seems obvious: Publishers don't appear interested in their various illogical, inconsistent, self-serving accounts. A publisher need only do a scant amount of research to discover the Mollands can't keep even their simplest facts straight.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ffff66;">A comprehensive Badfinger story has already been published that brings all the pieces together; a biography that is consistent, logical, evidentiary and well sourced. Hopefully, Ted Shaw will somehow learn from his myopia, and the next reporter will question the integrity and honesty of his subject before running with whatever gibberish is laid on his plate.</span>ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com88tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-66602730205169356702008-06-11T17:26:00.009-05:002017-03-20T15:39:10.304-05:00<span style="font-size: 130%;"><b><span style="color: #ffff66;">Credibility Out The Window </span></b></span><br />
The following may come as a shock to some but it's no surprise to me. Since this news has required some reorganization here, I will first offer some background.<br />
<br />
On a Molland-endorsed website, a person named Cheryl criticized the Badfinger book at length. Although Cheryl claims to have been quite social with Badfinger in the early 1970s, her criticisms were mostly little more than supporting the Mollands' claims that are already in the book. And most of these claims are regarding events where Cheryl obviously wasn't even present. In fact, of her 77 "corrections" of the book, only one appeared to have any possible firsthand validity. The remainder were either repeated hearsay or speculation. I addressed her entire critique here in a five-part article which I now believe was a waste of time, not to mention a waste of space (they have now been deleted).<br />
<br />
Cheryl's credibility went out the window with me when she later claimed to have had an intimate and revealing phone conversation with Pete Ham. This call allegedly occurred on 23 April 1975, the final night of his life, at Tom Evans' home. First of all, the circumstances just didn't add up. Secondly, it just seemed too out-of-character for Pete to reveal such alleged thoughts, considering he was notoriously guarded about his feelings. Lastly, what Pete purportedly said to her was in direct contradiction to what his family and friends have declared. Cheryl claims Pete told her he didn't want to start a family, which is absurd since he was attempting to marry Anne who had a young son, and that he wasn't happy with Anne either. Cheryl seems to be completely unaware of what Pete wrote in his suicide note.<br />
<br />
Tom Evans' widow, Marianne, has now publically and emphatically stated that this phone call never happened. She said she remembers everything about that night. Pete never spoke to anyone on the phone that Marianne did not know about. And if this isn't enough, Marianne also says she doesn't <u><b>even remember</b></u> Cheryl. Marianne states that if she or Tom had any significant relationship with this woman that she would remember her. Marianne does not. And although Marianne's statements are enough for me, Bob Jackson has also stepped forward and refutes Cheryl's claims about Pete's domestic situation. (Go to Tom Brennan's main page, top article, for a link to comments from Bob and Marianne<br />
<a href="http://host284.ipowerweb.com/~badfinge/index.html">http://host284.ipowerweb.com/~badfinge/index.html</a>)<br />
<br />
So to make a long story short, Cheryl's alleged phone call is a lie. So why is she claiming it? Well, I was a bit stymied initially. Someone asked me what her motivation might be and I could only speculate she was seeking attention. Now, however, I think it runs a bit deeper than that. There is strong evidence that Kathie Molland is at least partially involved. She and Cheryl have been advertising that they are blog buddies and that they are working on projects together. Recently from Cheryl's blog: <span style="color: #66ffff;"><i>"Cheryl and Kathie hard at work..........we have a lot to do."</i></span> From Kathie's blog on June 7:<span style="color: #33ffff;"> <i>"Cheryl and I have some news, but it's not time to talk about it yet..."</i></span> One might even speculate that Joey Molland is becoming agitated with the collusion. From Kathie's blog on May 13: <span style="color: #33ffff;"><i>"... my husband is being an absolute prick lately, I care about my friends and I don't want to lose them. They mean too much to me. Right now I wish my husband was away on tour..."</i></span><br />
<br />
But why would they suddenly want to attack Pete's memory and his family? Well, two reasons come to mind. One is that author Dan Matovina represents the Ham Estate, and the Mollands' feelings about him are no secret. Another reason is that Anne Herriott (the mother of Pete's daughter) made a statement on the official Pete Ham website last year where she displayed her agitation with the Mollands. This spurred Kathie Molland into hostile public responses shortly afterward.<br />
<br />
At any rate, I have always been of the opinion that the Mollands are not forthright about Badfinger's history. Their version of events never add up, are in contradiction of established facts, and they always manage to fashion themselves as heroes of the Badfinger story.<br />
<br />
So the question arises again: Can the Mollands accurately tell the Badfinger story? Or better yet, would they intentionally alter the story to suit their purposes? In light of their endorsement of Cheryl, I think the answers are apparent.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com41tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-55327751753917171962008-02-03T20:35:00.001-06:002017-03-20T15:38:59.917-05:00<span style="color: #ff6600;"><span style="font-size: 130%;"><b>"Free-Thinking Web Sites" </b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #ff9900;">I was sorry to read the recent comments by the Web Ring webhost about Badfinger "blogs." In his statements he said: <i>"...web pages and/or blogs began to appear that had very strong opinions that fell out of the main stream - some assaulted the senses when reading and fans who voiced their opinion about what was being said were/are attacked."</i> I believe there are only two Badfinger-oriented blogs out there right now, and the other hasn't been in operation for some two years. So I take this as criticism of my site. In another statement, he said: <i>"There are only a few free-thinking Badfinger web sites left..."</i> which I assume excludes mine (based on his blog statement).<br /><br />The Web Ring and Neil's site had/has no public forum, and Brando's site no longer has a public forum. Both the Yahoo board and Brennan's board have banned people. I, however, not only provide a public forum but have never banned anyone from my site. Anyone can post, by either using the anonymous function, using a pseudonym, or using their actual name. Only Morten Vindberg supplies a similar format. There have been a couple - NOTE: <b>only a couple of comments</b> - that I refused to publish due to their content, but the posters are always welcome to return and phrase themselves more presentably. And even my links section has always been fair. When people have asked me how to get to the Yahoo site, I pointed them to the Web Ring links section. I refused to link directly to Yahoo initially because of some earlier bad exchanges between its host and myself. I was considering adding the link late last year, but because of recent legal issues it's best that I don't right now.<br /><br />When I first launched my blog, the comments were completely open. I had to delete a few spams, but otherwise anyone could instantly post here. Unfortunately, times have changed since Brando and Randy operated completely unmoderated boards so I am having to review posts before they go up. I've noticed this is how most boards operate these days, and it is what I must do also.<br /><br />Coincidentally, of the recently demised Neil site, I was saddened to see Cheryl's book "corrections" disappear. I would very much have liked to comment on these so I am inviting her here now. Cheryl, if you'd like, I will put your entire section up on my blog. It intrigued me so much that I saved it all, and I had some questions for you on parts of it. Of course, your section will be prone to discussion and comment from me, and you may respond to those responses as well. It's up to you.<br /><br />But getting back to criticism of my blog, what can I say? I speak my mind and that may offend some people. I try not to be rude, but when people are rude with me I respond in kind. If I am taking a position contrary to what Joey's fans hold, it is dismissive (not to mention hypocritical) to say there is no free thought here. My format allows more free thought than the critics themselves provide.</span>ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-2183601956513863102008-01-01T20:17:00.001-06:002017-03-20T15:38:46.497-05:00<b><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="color: #33ff33;">Validation from BBC Wales</span> </span></b>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #66ff99;">A Badfinger documentary was aired on BBC Wales Radio today that is well worth the effort to locate and listen to. You can find their website at </span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/"><span style="color: #66ff99;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/</span></a>
<br />
<span style="color: #66ff99;">Once there, look for the section near the middle of the page that says <i>"Radio"</i> and <i>"Listen Again.</i>" Scroll to the bottom of this list and you will find <i>"Without You - The Badfinger Story."</i> Apparently the program is available for review for the next week, so don't procrastinate too long.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #66ff99;">The reason the program is relevant for this blog is the parallel it has to the "Without You" book. Most of the people interviewed also appeared in the book (with the notable addition of Pete Ham's daughter, Petera). And again, Joey Molland was absent, but more on that later. I won't bother to reproduce quotes from the program since most of the comments are nearly identical to those found in the book. Essentially, we have the same people saying the same things. This is important because we now have a production independent of the book that arrives at the same conclusions.</span>
<br />
<span style="color: #66ff99;"></span>
<span style="color: #66ff99;">Yes, Stan Polley is the villain of the story, and this point is driven home quite strongly. But we also have Bill Collins, Bob Jackson and Tom Evans (the latter from his telephone conversations) reiterating the internal strife that also destructed the band. Marianne Evans and Petera also emphasize their strong dissatisfaction with the 1995 ASCAP event, and Collins quite clearly states that there was never any written contract between the band members to divide publishing or songwriting royalties - for "Without You" or any other song. If there <b>had</b> been such contracts then Collins would certainly have known about them because <b>he</b> would have been the one to draw them up. Kathie Molland, however, continues to this day to insist such a contract exists. The motivation for this assertion is, in my opinion, purely mercenary.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #66ff99;">My question now is for the conspiracists out there who insist that author Dan Matovina had a hidden agenda against the Mollands when producing his book. How do you explain the results of the BBC program? Does the BBC have a hidden agenda against the Mollands, too? Perhaps the whole world has a hidden agenda against them; or, at least, those parts of the world that refuse to swallow the garbled nonsense put forth by the Molland distortion team. The conspiracy theorists accused Matovina of altering the VH-1 <i>Behind The Music</i> episode because he was reported as having some involvement in the program. Aside from a couple brief and innocuous comments in this BBC radio show, Matovina appears to have had <i>nothing</i> to do with this new production.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #66ff99;">Kathie Molland recently complained on another website that they were not contacted by the program. However, narrator James Dean Bradfield cited that their attempts to contact the Mollands had been unsuccessful. Joey must have some sort of management contact available since he tours often, coupled with his MySpace page (his wife has one too) and his email address is easily found using a Google search, so it isn't as though he is difficult to locate. Giving the Mollands the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they accidentally deleted the email(s). Not applying that same doubt, it's possible they do not want to cooperate with an independent documentary because of the tough questions that will be thrown at them. If so, they simply ignored the BBC overtures.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #66ff99;">Hopefully this radio show will air in the United States in the near future. Wherever it appears, it is worth the 53-minute investment of time.</span>ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-76702304384718682962007-11-30T14:00:00.002-06:002017-03-20T15:38:35.392-05:00<b><span style="font-size: 130%;">Point And Counterpoint </span></b>
<br />
<br />
On November 29, the following comments were attached to my article <i><b>"Statements That Strain Credibility."</b></i> The anonymous poster (who has since identified himself as "Eric") was lucid and touched on several subjects that are worth addressing. I have moved them to the front page so I can address them here.
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #33ff33;">"It is clear from the book that Matovina has something against Kathie Molland. He never passes up an opportunity to mention something negative about her (e.g., getting overdressed for George Harrison - geez, let's crucify her), he chose numerous photos of her which are unflattering, especially the most recent photos (and for some reason many of them show her with a beverage in her hand - what is Matovina going out of his way to insinuate?) and he ignored the fact that, ultimately, she was 100% justified in her frustration with the band's managerial situation."</span>
<br />
<br />
I say none of this is "clear." Marianne Evans (echoing Tom Evans) is the one who complained about Kathie during the Harrison sessions, so obviously she felt the incident was noteworthy. The author relayed the information. How do you know which photos were available to the author for publication? Perhaps all he had were photos of Kathie holding beverages, or perhaps these were the only ones that could be licensed or were in public domain. Maybe she is often holding a drink when photographers are available. Maybe she's a heavy drinker. No one in the book insinuates that she drinks a lot so I never came to that conclusion, and I doubt that anyone else would either.
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #33ff33;">"Imagine standing by helplessly while your spouse's career is being sabotaged by a crooked manager. Imagine voicing your concerns and having them dismissed by people who choose to live in denial.* Wouldn't you feel like kicking a car door? Wouldn't you try to call a meeting to address the siuation? I mean, who's the real villian of this story? It's obviously Stan Polley, but the way Matovina depicts Kathie Molland, you might not be so sure that she isn't more of a villian than Polley. Clearly, Joey has a right to take issue with the way his wife is portrayed. I'm not saying either of them is a saint, but come on!"</span>
<br />
<br />
How do you know what Pete and Kathie argued about on that day? According to the Mollands, Pete and Kathie only ever argued about Polley and management. According to everyone else, that's not true. Reportedly, Kathie argued with everyone about everything; about what songs should go on albums, how many Joey songs should be included, the use of their rehearsal room, personal relationships, etc. For all you know Kathie wanted to initiate a meeting about how long people may use the communal bathroom. You draw conclusions based bias, and that bias favors the Mollands.
<br />
<br />
Of course Stan Polley is the villain of the story. This is quite clear through the interviews of Christie, Kooper, Calello, Poses, and myriad assorted attorneys, executives and associates of Polley. Matovina presents them all, and they lay it on quite thick. Just because Polley is the "villain" isn't an excuse to whitewash other elements of the story. It is abundantly clear from any perspective you choose that Kathie was a continual disruption for the band. It's pretty obvious that the participants wanted to convey that fact, and the author presents it. To deny that she was a disruption is the "denial" you should be referring to.
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #33ff33;">"And, Bill, before you ask - no, I will not cite pages or type out quotations because 1) I don't have the book with me now, 2) I don't have the time and 3) I don't have to - we've all read the book and we all know what I'm talking about."</span>
<br />
<br />
No big deal. I located the portions you referred to.
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #33ff33;">"Also, does Ron's quote not indicate that he was given a check by Bill Collins?? Joey never recants his claim that this money exchanged hands - he only says he is not certain where the money came from and when it was paid. This is totally understandable because he was not personally involved in the transaction. Anything else about Ron's misunderstanding of the arrangement is not Joey's fault. Furthermore, are we to assume that Joey is telling the truth when he says he had to assume Ron's share of the band's debt upon joining? You did not attempt to refute that statement, Bill. Point is, this is supposed to be an example of Joey contradicting himself, but I don't see it."</span>
<br />
<br />
Not really contradicting himself, but being forced to explain his negative innuendo. Read again what Joey suggests in his first statement, what he insinuates that he knows about Ron Griffiths and the negative image he applies to him. Then again read his backtracking in the second statement, where he basically admits he knows nothing about the event. He's forced to admit he's "guessing" as to what happened. This is from the same person who claims to be the astronaut - the only person capable of telling the Badfinger story. What kind of accuracy would you expect from him in his authorized biography?
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #33ff33;">"*Re: denial. Pete chose to deny what everyone else knew about the band's managerial situation. Why? Not because he was a pie-in-the-sky dreamer who believed the world is a place where we should all be "allowed to love and trust everybody," but because he wanted to avoid conflict with Polley. My evidence? 1) The interview on the "Without You" cd in which Pete discusses the themes behind "Perfection" - clearly he knew that the world is an imperfect place where utopian ideals do not exist. He was not a fool. 2) The book says he was involved and interested in the business aspects of the band - he liked interacting with business-types and they respected him. Would they respect him if he was just a spacy hippie who rambled on about love and trust when it came to matters of business? I doubt it. 3) The book is clear about his desire to avoid conflict whenever possible. Could it be that his uncharacteristic blowout with Kathie Molland was triggered by his knowing that she was in the right? In short, Pete knew the score but wanted to avoid the conflict that would have resulted from addressing the problems."</span>
<br />
<br />
None of the info here is revelatory. You've drawn your own conclusions based on long-established facts. I don't agree with your conclusions, but all anyone can do is speculate about what Pete really thought about Polley at any given time. Poses warned him about Polley in 1972, so I suspect he probably had deep-down suspicions regarding him. You believe those suspicions were more conscious than I believe they were. But as far as Kathie being "in the right" ... I don't think anyone has ever claimed she was wrong about Polley. The point is there were a lot of people sending alarms out about Polley, not just Kathie. And no one has ever said Pete was right about Polley either.
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #33ff33;">"Lastly (and this is obviously a touchy subject), the book never criticizes Pete for two key decisions. First, he had the power to decide to take action against Polley and did not - the band needed his vote to make a move. In doing so, he ensured that the band would continue to get screwed in spite of the fact that by the end they all knew what was going on. Could this knowledge be the source of the "guilt" that caused him to put cigarettes out on his hands?"</span>
<br />
<br />
I have no clue what prompted the cigarette bit. That was an insane act. But if you want to speculate on the facts, how about this: Did you notice that the Apple check that Joey and Tom stopped was the first check from Apple in 2 years? McCartney had the company's assets locked up in a lawsuit until mid-1974, and when these two-years' worth of funds finally get released to Badfinger, the check is stopped. So Polley's Badfinger income was certainly limited during that time. In reaction to Joey and Tom stopping the check, Polley may have stopped the paychecks to the band. If they hadn't halted that check, what would have happened? That's some of my speculation.
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #33ff33;">"Second, Pete (God rest his soul) committed the ultimate act of selfishness rather than confront the problem and in doing so drastically reduced the odds that the band would remain a viable commerical entity, which is what they would have needed to recover from their years of mismanagement. "</span>
<br />
<br />
As far as the band remaining a viable entity, I doubt any of them were thinking about that - not just Pete. Joey tried to keep Pete out of the band, and then quit when Pete returned. How viable did that make Badfinger? Anyway, it's unlikely the band would have ever recovered. It wasn't until <b>after</b> Pete's death that Polley relinquished his interest in the band, and he wouldn't have done that with Pete still alive.
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #33ff33;">"Yes, it is uncomfortable to raise these issues, but the point is that Pete was a flawed man (like we all are - but these flaws manifested to the detriment of his friends) and this is not Joey Molland's fault. Everyone looks for a scapegoat to whom they can direct their frustration at the band's demise and Joey is the most visible and obvious target. But that doesn't necessarily make it right."</span>
<br />
<br />
I don't see anyone in the book blaming Joey for Pete's death.
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #33ff33;">(This turned into more of a "rant" than I planned - usually I would take more care in constructing an argument. But the core ideas I meant to convey are there. Also, if I sound mean-spirited, it is not intentional. I just enjoy a good debate.)
<br />PS - I am not a Joey follower, crony, minion or whatever other terms you can think of. I have no personal interest in this aside from the fact that I am a fan of the group.</span>
<br />
<br />
Judging by your knowledge of the band and your fervor about how the Mollands are portrayed in the book, I find this very hard to believe. There are basically three camps of Badfinger fans on the Internet: Defenders of the Mollands, defenders of the book, and people who aren't interested in the politics. If you don't fall into the last two categories then you must be in the first.
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: 130%;">A Bit More On Kathie</span></b>
<br />
<br />
For some time ahead of the actual publication of the book, both Joey and Kathie Molland were commenting in magazine articles and on the Internet about how the book would be inaccurate. They had no idea who was going to be interviewed, what information would be presented, but they supposedly had a sixth sense about it. Subsequent to the book's release their tactics have remained the same. They never address the people who commented in the book, but instead continually attack the author. The logical conclusion here is that the Mollands knew beforehand how people felt about them, and they wanted to throw the first punch by attacking the book and author ahead of the game. They continue along this track because dealing with all of the individual comments in the book would be too overwhelming for them, so they claim (truthfully or not) to have never read the book. This lets them off the hook for addressing what their peers have actually said about them.
<br />
<br />
As far as Matovina goes, again, all of the Mollands' complaints about the author (as suggested by the above person) boil down to him having some sort of agenda against them. He would have had to manipulate interviews and information to paint an inaccurate picture. However, this conspiracy theory is shot down by the fact that the interviewees of the book stand by its presentation. They do not step forward and claim they complimented the Mollands but only the negative comments were printed. They do not step forward and say they were misquoted. On the contrary, the participants who have made public statements after the book was released have only supported the book and the author. The Mollands and their defenders conveniently ignore this glaring fact.
<br />
<br />
Having read Kathie Molland's comments on the Internet for the past 10 years, I am most confident she was accurately portrayed in the book. The attitude that I have witnessed online surpasses even what was suggested by her peers in the book. So when people come along and claim the author must have had an agenda against the Mollands, or Kathie specifically, certain reasons come quickly to mind. The person is either a friend or a hardcore fan of the Mollands and they are in denial, or they haven't been following her commentaries online.
<br />
<br />
I have considered posting an article here with nothing more than online comments Kathie has made throughout the years, along with dates and sources. No accompanying commentary from me, just her words standing on their own. Perhaps this is what's needed for those who are uninitiated with her thoughts. Whether or not I pursue this will depend on my available time, as it will be a daunting task to go through 10 years' worth of postings to make the compilation.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-39937165228671812272007-06-24T19:20:00.003-05:002017-03-20T15:38:22.694-05:00<span style="color: #ccccff;"><span style="color: #ff6600; font-size: 180%;"><b>Joey's Badfinger Biography? </b></span></span>
<br />
<span style="color: #ccccff;"><span style="color: #ff6600; font-size: 130%;"><i>"You don't know me, what's on my mind</i></span></span>
<br />
<span style="color: #ccccff;"><span style="color: #ff6600; font-size: 130%;"><i>You can't show me, what I can't find"</i></span></span>
<br />
<span style="color: #ccccff;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">Lyrics from "I Don't Mind"</span>
</span>
<br />
I have never been one to criticize Joey Molland for any delay in his claimed projects. But I believe the time has come, on the heels of yet another bizarre book announcement, to finally address the unrealized declarations of Joey and Kathie Molland. And this is especially timely with the 10-year anniversary of the release of "Without You: The Tragic Story Of Badfinger."
<br />
<br />
On May 7, 2007, <b>City At Night Magazine</b> published an interview with Joey. In that article Joey states that his autobiography, “When I Was A Boy,” is set to be released by a <i>major publisher</i> (actually "Golden Treasures," heard of that one?). However, the reporter paraphrases Joey by saying this book has been delayed: <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">"…delayed because of an auto accident which threatened the life of Joey’s and Kathie’s son, Joe. He reports the welcome news that Joe has made a great, hard-fought recovery and is back full force, playing guitar and writing music, which Joey is now producing."</span></i> Let me see if I have this straight: Kathie announced in January 2006 that Joe Jr. had made a full recovery, from a car accident that occurred in 2005. Yet the book is still delayed in May 2007 due to this accident? This makes absolutely no sense, especially since the book was supposedly <i>finished</i> in 2003. This is just the latest of the weird travails in the story of Joey's Badfinger books.
<br />
<br />
<b>Murray Silver</b>
<br />
Joey may have toyed with book ideas as early as the 1980s, but he never made them public. His first publicized book idea dates from the early 1990s, and was mentioned by him in 2004 when answering why he didn't participate in the book Matovina was writing. Joey: <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">"I told (Dan Matovina) I was looking into having a biography done by a biographer well known at that time for his work on the Jerry Lee Lewis bio, "Great Balls of Fire". I thought that would be the way to go for a first class book on our band. His name is Murray Silver."</span></i> Whether or not Joey ever spoke with Silver is unclear, but the author's essential contribution to "Great Balls Of Fire" was to organize the information provided by Myra Lewis, the teen bride of Jerry Lee. Silver has since published at least two books; one about the Ghosts Of Savannah (complete with a speaking tour) and his recent spiritual Elvis endeavor. A review of this most recent book, titled “When Elvis Meets the Dalai Lama,” sounds right up Joey’s alley: <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">"…this book is a mess of memories that are wildly fantastical and probably falsely recalled. I've actually spoken to some of the parties mentioned in the book, such was my curiosity, and they laugh off the tales as ‘another one of Murray's bids for attention.’"</span></i> The reviewer also eludes to Silver’s penchant for UFOs, ghosts, and a conspiracy theory that Elvis was murdered. Silver is difficult to contact for comment, reportedly he's in hiding due to the black helicopters that are hunting for him.
<br />
<br />
<b>John Einarson</b>
<br />
The next possible Joey author was Einarson in 1995. More than any other candidate, Einarson is the most accomplished writer with impressive credentials. He and Joey agreed to the idea, and he later interviewed Joey for a piece in Mojo Magazine. According to an email posted at the book website, Einarson wrote to Matovina: <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">"Frankly, after reading your book, I'm very glad I didn't pursue the project as you have done a wonderful job and I may have ended up leaning on the Mollands' rather skewed version of history a bit too much."</span></i> Einarson also said his conversations with Joey were revealing, in that: <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">"He wasn't very flattering about you (Matovina), I must say, but obviously that was tempered by his concern about how he would be portrayed and he had much to hide."</span></i> Interesting that Einarson concluded that Joey had “much to hide.” At any rate, Einarson, who deals strictly with large publishing houses, found little interest among them for a Badfinger biography, so he said he passed on the project. His complete commentary can be found in the book review section at the official book website.
<br />
<br />
<b>Keith Queensen</b>
<br />
The next contender for Joey, starting around 1998, was Queensen, a wrongful-injury lawyer and Badfinger fan from the Minneapolis area. Queensen announced that he wanted to conduct interviews with many people for his tentatively titled book <i>"Badfinger: For Love or Money,"</i> but ultimately barely got past Joey and Kathie. <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">"I've found it especially interesting to talk to Kathie… When you think about it, her personal story is really pretty incredible. Here's this Midwestern girl growing up in the suburbs of Minneapolis during the 1960s who all of a sudden finds herself living in an old, medieval castle with a British rock band, hanging out with the Beatles!"</span></i> A story following Kathie moving to a castle and hanging out with the Beatles? Extremely peripheral and fanciful, Queensen was obviously confused about what constitutes a biography of a rock band. But unsurprising since he considered Kathie a “principal” within Badfinger: <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">"I am personally saddened by the intensity of the negative feeling between the various Badfinger "camps" (for example, Mike referring to Kathie Molland as the "anti-christ") and hope that some day the principals in the Badfinger story will be friends again..."</span></i> Queensen never realized his hopes, and passed away in 2004.
<br />
<br />
<b>Michael Cimino</b>
<br />
Next comes Cimino, a webmaster who operates a periodical called "Cottage Views." Cimino (or "Chimino" according to Kathie) first announced his project in 1999, and then suggested it would be <i>completed</i> in 1999, and later said in 2001 that <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">"I would have finished it already but too many cocktails, er, I mean, distractions got in the way."</span></i> As of 2007, there is no sign of this book. Cimino has been a long-winded critic of the Without You book, reviewing it in 1998 with: <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">"...by elevating guitarist Pete Ham, who tragically committed suicide in 1974, to near-saintly status, the importance of the band's collective clout is dismissed..."</span></i> One might assume that this "biographer" has since learned that Ham died in 1975. Part of Cimino's irk may be grounded in jealousy, considering <i>himself</i> to be Badfinger's biographer. In a comment posted on VH1’s website, the day after its "Behind The Music" episode on Badfinger aired, Cimino lambasted the network: <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">"…Did these oversights occur because Mr. Matovina was creative consoltant to the show? If so, that puts Mr. Matovina on the same level as Stan Polley because Mr. Matovina has an interest in the Ham demo discs and receives a royalty from them...
<br />p.s. how come I wasn't contacted for your show?"</span></i>
<br />
<br />
Perhaps they'll contact him next time around - assuming he does something relevant in the meantime.
<br />
<br />
<b>Billy James</b>
<br />
Last comes James, an author with proper credentials. James has been a mystery since he was first mentioned around 2001. He does not post on guestbooks or make announcements on websites, thereby keeping a rather low profile. Joey announced in December 2003: <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">"'When I was a boy' is in fact finished as a story. I delivered the book to Billy James in August, 2003. I am at present re-writing the manuscript into a more narrative form as I think it will be a more enjoyable and comprehensible read. I've completed around 70 pages, Hand written, Legal Pad size, and have about 100/150 pages to go."</span></i> It is the James book that is allegedly delayed now - four years later - due to a car accident that ocurred two years ago. A person answering the phone at Golden Treasures (the "major publisher" which operates out of someone's home) said this month that the book won't be out until <i>at least</i> 2008.
<br />
<br />
As I said in the opening, I have withheld criticism of the Mollands for faulty book announcements up till now because the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. But when they go awry again and again and again, after announcement after anouncement after announcement, and then claim ancient events are slowing current projects, it becomes comical. This has been going on <i>continuously</i> for <i>more</i> than 10 years now, and there is no end in sight.
<br />
<br />
My conclusion: Some authors are never contacted (Silver), legitimate authors don't know what to do with the wild and unsupported Molland claims (Einarson), lesser authors just run with whatever the Mollands tell them (Queensen), and they end up with nonsensical mulch that publishers will not touch (Cimino).
<br />
<br />
Sorry, Badfinger fans, but don't lose any sleep waiting for another Badfinger biography.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-47284609767567483302007-05-29T20:54:00.002-05:002017-03-20T15:38:11.243-05:00<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="font-size: 130%;">The Ham Estate Speaks Out </span></b>
<br /><b><span style="font-size: 130%;"></span></b></span>
<br />
In April 2007, the Official Pete Ham website was launched to celebrate what would have been Pete's 60th birthday. Memories, thoughts and comments are offered by Tony and Anne Herriott, and Pete's daughter, Petera. <a href="http://www.peteham.net/">http://www.peteham.net/</a>
<br />
<br />
Although the reader will notice that the website is currently rather spartan, the comments do reveal some of the innermost thoughts of those with a special connection with Pete Ham. Petera, who never knew her biological father, mentions her sadness with his absence. Tony, Petera's adoptive father, offers a touching poem about his care for her.
<br />
<br />
But it is in regards to Anne's comments that compelled me to write a quick article on this. The reader will notice that Anne (as well as Petera and Tony) have no regrets about how the Badfinger book came out. Anne's comments about an "ex-bandmate" of Pete's cannot be misconstrued, and is thoroughly compatible with her comments and sentiments that were expressed more than 10 years ago in that publication. All three personally thank Dan Matovina, the author of the book.
<br />
<br />
So what does this all mean? It means what has consistently transpired throughout the years since the book was first published: People interviewed for the book stand by what they said in it. It means the author did not twist their words or intentions, which has been one of the charges periodically made by the Mollands.
<br />
<br />
I hope to dig up some more supporting comments in the coming months.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com41tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-81931359874022314242007-02-15T13:49:00.003-06:002017-03-20T15:37:59.712-05:00<span style="font-size: 130%;"><b>Re-established: Purpose for this Blog </b></span>
<br />
<br />
Because of recent developments, I have decided to re-establish the purpose for this blog.
<br />
<br />
<b>The Band:
</b>Originally called The Iveys, Badfinger was signed by The Beatles to its Apple Records label in 1968. Their first hit in 1970 was the Paul McCartney song "Come And Get It," which was soon followed by "No Matter What" (possibly the first Power Pop song in history). The group achieved more success with the singles "Day After Day" and "Baby Blue" in 1972; the last three were all written by band member singer/guitarist Pete Ham. Another Badfinger success was "Without You," a song written by Ham and bandmate Tom Evans, made famous by Harry Nilsson in 1972 and Mariah Carey in 1994.
<br />
<br />
Six albums were released by Badfinger during their heyday between 1969 and 1974. At that time, the band consisted of Pete Ham, Tom Evans, Joey Molland and Mike Gibbins. During 1969 and prior, the group contained Ron Griffiths. From mid-1974 and off-and-on afterward, the group contained Bob Jackson. Poor management and band infighting caused the group to sputter in 1974, and by April of 1975 Ham committed suicide. After Molland and Evans conducted a brief resurgence between 1979 and 1981, the band dissolved again. Evans committed suicide in 1983. Gibbins passed away in October 2005. Although Joey Molland has performed sporadically under the Badfinger name, or as "Joey Molland's Badfinger," since 1988, the venues have been relatively minor.
<br />
<br />
<b>The Book:
</b>In 1997, a biography of the band was published called <span style="color: #ffff66;"><i>"Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger."</i></span> It was written by Dan Matovina and published by Frances Glover Books. Since the release of this book, Joey Molland and his wife, Kathie, have denounced both the book and its author. Their gripes are based on how they are portrayed in the book, and <i>all</i> of their blame is directed at author Matovina. Judging by the evidence, their complaints are completely groundless. The Mollands’ essential gripes are as follows:
<br />
<br />
1) That Matovina was ill suited to write the biography. This complaint about Matovina is countered by the results. Matovina, a record producer who now is a representative for the Ham Estate, released a book that has garnered widespread acclaim among book critics. The book was voted the #2 Best Rock Biography of 1997 in a poll of book critics in Great Britain. Reviews of the book have been favorable across the board - from Rolling Stone Magazine, Record Collector Magazine, Goldmine Magazine, Discoveries Magazine, among many, many others. For a complete list of reviews, please visit the book website reviews section at: <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/%7Ecrimson3/book-reviews.html">http://www.mindspring.com/~crimson3/book-reviews.html</a>
<br />
This basically answers the question of whether or not Matovina is a capable author.
<br />
2) The Mollands complain that the book contains errors and "lies" about them. More than 200 people were interviewed for the book. With the exception of Ham (who died very early) every legitimate band member was interviewed by Matovina, either specifically for this book or for previous projects: Tom Evans, Mike Gibbins, Ron Griffiths, Bob Jackson, and even Joey Molland and his wife. The interview list also includes producers of the band, managers of the band, the presidents and executives of Badfinger's two record labels (Apple and Warner Brothers Records) and tons of close family and friends of the group. Of these hundreds of people, nearly every retold incident that involves the Mollands is detailed by more than one witness. These incidents were chronicled through quotes by the interviewees. Corroboration through various sources is how courtrooms decide on the truth; the same applies here. Admittedly, every book ever published contains some errors, but the Mollands have supplied absolutely <b>no</b> evidence or clear motive why or how the book would contain “lies.”
<br />
3) Joey Molland has claimed book interviewees were either misquoted or manipulated by Matovina to make him and his wife look bad. However, many of the intervieweess have gone public since the book was published in support of what they said and the message they conveyed. Many of these participants have even made <i><b>declarations</b></i> to this effect, and are viewable on the author’s website. Not a single book participant has gone public and made any contrary claim. So much for misquotes and manipulation.
<br />
<br />
Ironically, after all of this criticism, it is <i>the Mollands</i> who appear to be unreliable sources for information regarding the band. During decades of interviews for magazines, radio and television, Joey has denied lawsuits that took place, denied concert tours that took place, changed his recollections of conversations that took place, intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented Badfinger contracts, has confused timelines, and - most of all - has inflated the importance of his wife's positive influence on the band. Interviewees were unanimous that Kathie Molland's influence was always negative, and often extremely so.
<br />
<br />
More than anything else, the Mollands’ hostility about the book and its author appear to hinge on how they are portrayed. The portrayal is the result of what <b><i>witnesses</i></b> say - not what the author says. Instead of dealing with the massive amount of interviewees and their quotes, they have found Matovina to be a much easier target. As evidence of this tactic, the Mollands have admitted that they have never even read the book.
<br />
<br />
In conclusion, all the above is the purpose for this blog: To dispel the groundless attacks on the book by the Mollands, and to show (using quotes and documentation) that the author reported the facts as accurately as possible. In my strong opinion, the Mollands are simply bitter because closet skeletons they wished to keep concealed were ultimately exposed to the public, and because of their displayed tendency of exerting control over all things "Badfinger," they were incensed at not being able to control the book.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-1152217196771364332006-07-06T15:11:00.002-05:002017-03-20T15:37:48.881-05:00<b><span style="font-size: 130%;">Statements That Strain Credibility </span></b>
<br />
<br />
Before tackling another specific topic, I wanted to address a couple loose tidbits that have been scattered around. The following are some comments made by Joey in the past.
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">“…Well the guy (Dan Matovina) has uh... he's misquoted close friends of mine, you know, he's insinuated things about my wife in there. I mean it's just outrageous. Bloody outrageous. I believe it's in the book that he even accuses me of stealing money from the band.”</span> (Interview with Mark Snyder)
<br />
<br />
What is really outrageous is this statement coming from someone who has never even read the book. First, the “close friends” are not identified. Second, there is no evidence of misquotes. Everyone who has stepped forward after the book’s publication has stood by the comments they made in the book. No participant has made any public charges about misquotes. Third, the “insinuations” are not identified. Lastly, regarding “stealing money from the band,” this may be Joey’s conscience talking to him. The book author never accuses Joey of “stealing” money.
<br />
<br />
But speaking of making insinuations, here is an interesting Joey comment:
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">“Did you hear the one about the band giving Ron a bunch of money as a settlement when he left the band and the other one about me becoming responsible for his share of any debts the band had accrued while he was a member,as Bill used to say,"mutatis mutandi"</span> (8-31-2004, Randy‘s Guestbook)
<br />
<br />
Joey is strongly suggesting to a fan that Ron Griffiths was paid off with “a bunch of money” when he left the group. When asked for clarification on this, Joey backs down and says he isn’t sure this ever happened.
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">“I'm not sure when Ron was given the money, only that Bill told us he had done it. Bill had some money of his own that he used to keep the band going, he may have used some of that. He may have got some money from Apple, an advance perhaps, sorry I can't be any more specific than that. Remember Ron was in the band when they recorded Come and get it and it was later on that he left. I'm guessing here as to what happened as I wasn't yet involved with the band.”</span> (9-1-2004, Randy’s Guestbook)
<br />
<br />
Someone with far more knowledge of the event, Ron Griffiths, said he was not paid off. Here is Ron’s quote from the book (from which, by the way, he has stated publicly he was not misquoted):
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: yellow;">“When I left the band in 1969, I had been told by Bill (Collins) that I would get royalties from ‘Come And Get It,’ because I was on it. Time went on and the record became a big hit. Bill came to me and said, ‘Look, here’s a check, but you have to sign something to buy yourself out of the group.’ I assumed it meant I was officially not a member of the band anymore, so that I wouldn’t get any of their future royalties. It was later when Bill claimed that I had signed a paper giving away my rights to everything I’d worked on in the past. Even my own song, ‘Dear Angie!’ I never got a copy of that paper, but I finally saw it years later, and it said nothing of the kind!”</span>
<br />
<br />
Now, finally, here’s a palpable statement from Joey:
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">“I don't know who said it, but they were right when they said maybe Joe's memory is a little cloudy, we had different priorities back then...</span> (9-4-2002, Randy’s Guestbook)
<br />
<br />
Great! No pretense of remembering or even having known everything that happened with the band. Imagine an astronaut returned from the moon and said, “That was an amazing trip. I can’t tell you how the space capsule was built, who built it, what materials were used, but I can give you my impression of being inside of it. I can’t tell you what the moon is made of, how many mountains I saw there, the size of all the rocks I picked up, but I can tell you what it’s like to stand there. I can’t tell you what Buzz Aldrin was thinking, or what is relationship was like with his wife, or what he learned about Ground Control, but I can tell you what it was like to spend time and work with him.” This would be much better than, “Don’t question my knowledge. I was there, you weren’t. I know everything there is to know - period,” and then proceed to invent facts contrary to the evidence. Credibility shaken on known facts makes credibility on unknown "facts" suspect.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-1151183771087207642006-06-24T16:07:00.002-05:002017-03-20T15:37:35.406-05:00<b><span style="font-size: 130%;">Did Badfinger sue Apple? </span></b>
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: 130%;">"We never did that" says Joey. </span></b>
<br />
<br />
When the release of the Apple <i><b>Ass</b></i> album was delayed, and it pushed up against the release of the new <b><i>Badfinger</i></b> album from Warner Brothers, Stan Polley was apparently agitated. He threatened Apple to keep the <b><i>Ass</i></b> album on the shelf or there would be repercussions, and he used Joey Molland’s unclear song publishing as a weapon. The quoted letters between Polley and Apple are printed in the Badfinger book. Apple released the <i><b>Ass</b></i> album anyway and credited all songs on the album as being written by “Badfinger” (in an obvious attempt to obscure Joey’s compositions).
<br />
According to court documents on file in New York City (Badfinger book page 231), Stan Polley and Badfinger Enterprises, Inc. sued Apple Records, Apple Publishing and Capitol Records on December 5, 1973.
<br />
<br />
However, according to Joey Molland, none of this ever happened. The following is from a Bill Last interview in <b><i>Good Day Sunshine</i></b>:
<br />
Bill Last: <span style="color: green;">"It was nice on the live album (Day After Day Live), how you went through and said
<br />who did what... where."”</span>
<br />
Joey Molland: <span style="color: red;">"Yeah, it was really simple... it was simple, and I just wanted to put it out there, so that everyone would stop confusing... It's like saying we never had any legal problems with Apple, and
<br />I've said that a thousand times; but people still ask me, 'So, Apple sued you in 1973,' and it's absolute rubbish. We never did that.…”</span>
<br />
This is particularly interesting as only <b>one</b> Badfinger member should have remembered this lawsuit, and that would be Joey. The lawsuit was launched because of his song publishing. And of all the Badfinger members, only Joey signed an affidavit in connection with the lawsuit. It read:
<br />
<span style="color: red;">“I confirmed the recording agreement. Although on numerous occasions I have been asked to sign an exclusive publishing agreement with Apple Publishing Ltd., I have refused to do so.”</span>
<br />
<span style="color: red;"></span>
Also, upon the lawsuit resolution in June 1974, Joey was ordered by the court to sign an acknowledgement that he was bound by the 1968 Apple publishing agreement. This must have been done or else the <i><b>Ass</b></i> album would have created more legal snafus.
<br />
<br />
Arguments have been made in the past that Joey’s magazine interview comments are not comparable to book information. This may be reasonable in some cases, as in some foggy recollection about an obscure incident, but this is not the case here.
<br />
<br />
1) Joey was not asked about Badfinger legalities from the 1970s. His faulty information in this case was unsolicited, so it’s not as though the question caught him unprepared.
<br />
<br />
2) Joey’s comment was firm and adamant. He emphatically claims there has never been any legal problems between Badfinger and Apple. It is a declaration.
<br />
<br />
3) Joey cannot claim the lawsuit was simply between Polley and Apple and that he had no knowledge of it. He submitted an affidavit for the lawsuit, so he was obviously aware of it.
<br />
<br />
4) Joey cannot claim lack of consent and that the lawsuit really had no Badfinger backing. Again, he submitted an affidavit in support of Polley’s lawsuit. His support indicates consent - regardless of whether or not the band members put it up to a vote.
<br />
<br />
My suspicion is that Joey remembers what he wants to remember. If people complained to him about his wife in the 1970s, he generally doesn't want to remember it and denies it ever happened. He then blames Matovina for somehow fabricating all the criticisms that the interviewees offered. Joey apparently doesn't want to remember legal troubles between Badfinger and Apple, so he denies it ever happened. Not much difference really.
<br />
<br />
The Badfinger story according to astronaut Joey? Maybe someone didn’t put enough oxygen in his space capsule.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-1140148800029706382006-02-16T21:59:00.002-06:002017-03-20T15:37:22.898-05:00<b><span style="font-size: 130%;">Back to Book Business ... </span></b>
<br />
<br />
I would like to explore some of the lawsuits Badfinger endured during the 1970s - especially the 1973 Apple suit. Again, this isn't an opportune time to put it together. But it will be noteworthy as Joey Molland claimed in an interview that this lawsuit never existed. Amazing, as it not only significantly affected the group's income, Joey actually made the statement <i>long</i> after the fact (the early 1990s, I believe). More astronaut descriptions, I guess.
<br />
<br />
Anyway, more on this subject later.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-1133376447075418122005-11-30T12:32:00.002-06:002017-03-20T15:37:11.123-05:00<b><span style="font-size: 130%;">A Logical Contradiction:
</span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-size: 130%;">Cutting Deals with Stan Polley</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;">This</span> is another subject that is incredulous about Joey's version of Badfinger history, the purported "deal" he worked out with Polley in 1974 to buy Badfinger out of its contracts. I don't doubt that Joey actually spoke with Polley on this matter, or that they spoke about cutting a deal. What I <b>doubt</b> is that Joey understood the situation - either then or now.
<br />
<br />First, as has been clearly stated by many Polley clients, this character routinely gathered money to himself by any means possible. He never gave/sold back contracts if he could still make money from them. Badfinger's contracts still had much more money to yield. Second, this is the same person who pulled a gun on one of his clients, and laughed and taunted other clients when they asked him to be financially reasonable. According to a witness before a Senate investigation committee, Polley worked his way up through the ranks of organized crime. He was mean, tough, and shrewd.
<br />
<br />Now, Joey claims he worked out a deal with Polley where Badfinger would buy back its contracts from him. One problem here is that Badfinger didn't have any real money that wasn't already in Polley's bank account. What was Polley's incentive? Did Joey threaten that Badfinger would sue Polley? Polley's history of court victories indicate this would not have worried him. Besides, because of these lopsided contracts, Polley was legally safe in his operation. Did Joey threaten that the band would break up? I don't believe a single member could make a convincing case for this. No matter how you weigh it, this purported "deal" simply does not have any logical conclusions to it.
<br />
<br />My <b>theory</b> is that Joey was duped by Polley; a stalling tactic meant to get the musician out of his hair. He knew he could simply agree to anything Joey suggested, and that the musician would soon be on a jet and on his way out of the country. Polley was probably laughing before Joey even made it to the end of the street. Once Joey was back in England, he would no longer be a problem for Polley, and any agreement he made would simply be ignored from that point forward.
<br />
<br />Not to be too hard on Joey, but Polley bamboozled people who were far more worldly than any Badfinger member. Badfinger were naive, idealistic hippie kids who were dealing with a very experienced and cunning shark. I can't believe an equitable deal could have been struck between any Badfinger member and Polley. The chasm was far too wide, and Badfinger simply had nothing to offer or threaten him with.
<br />
<br />It's funny because several times both Joey & Kathie Molland criticized Bill Collins for being "duped" by Polley. It's also funnier when I see Joey - even today - claiming in interviews that he "worked out a deal" with the devil. I suspect we have an ex-hippie running around who is <b>still</b> being duped by Polley.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-1133219101467882212005-11-28T16:47:00.002-06:002017-03-20T15:37:00.104-05:00<b><span style="font-size: 130%;">How Many Arguments Will Stick To The Wall? </span></b>
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: 130%;"></span></b>
<br />
At the bottom of the October page, in the 'Comments' section, I argued with "Dexy" about the Badfinger book. This debater, although using better structure than some previous opponents, has used the same overall approach; i.e. throw everything you can against the wall and see if anything sticks. The problem with this approach is the abundance of refuted arguments that fall to the ground.
<br />
<br />
Dexy eventually supplied some answers to my questions, which are in the comments section of this article, but few of these are very applicable to the accuracy of the book.
<br />
<br />
In this case (as in many cases), the argument mainly revolves around whether or not author Dan Matovina had a bias against the Mollands and portrayed that in the book. Any proponent of "bias" is working from a presumption. The burden of proof for a presumption is squarely on the shoulders of the proponent. I don't have to prove the non-existence of bias. In the case of "bias," I look at the verified evidence and conclude there was none, or at least none that is perceivable.
<br />
<br />
Regarding the topic of missing information: This is a subject that can be forever debated without any resolution. Theoretically, a totally comprehensive book on any subject could fill several sets of encyclopedias. Obviously not every bit of information will be included in a single book. Are the things that are left out designed to deceive the readers? Conspiracy proponents will say yes. I say no. The preponderance of available, verified evidence indicates the book presents facts as they are. Interviewees who have stepped forward have said the book represented what they said, and basically represented events as they remembered them. Not a single book participant has stepped forward and said Matovina twisted facts or was pushing an agenda.
<br />
<br />
Suppose a piece of missing information was something favorable to Joey, say a charity benefit he performed for. Is this evidence for "bias?" Again, the preponderance of evidence suggests not. One might also find a charity benefit performed by Tom Evans that was not included, or a substantial contribution made by Pete Ham to a charity that was not included. A modus operandi would need to be compiled, not a single instance, to prove an omission of facts against the Mollands. But since the book has been <b>far</b> more informative than Joey has been about Badfinger history, the problem of omissions appears to reside in Joey's corner.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-1132679822376196742005-11-22T11:09:00.002-06:002017-03-20T15:36:46.970-05:00<b><span style="font-size: 130%;">Astronaut History #1:
<br />Joey's last conversation with Tom.
</span></b>
<br />
As noted on the sidebar, Joey claims that he is the only person capable of telling the Badfinger story because he is the only "astronaut" who was there. For decades Joey has told his story many times, and he hasn't yet provided a good description of the moon. One result of Joey's stories was the confusion noted by Bill DeYoung of Goldmine Magazine in 1997: "For although the high points of the Badfinger story have long been common knowledge, they've always read like some kind of impressionist road map, open forever to individual interpretation and with lots of blank spaces and grey areas left to be filled in."
<br />
<br />
DeYoung's confusion was probably due in part to Joey's sloppy details, but also due to some intentional revisions on Joey's part. One recent revision from Joey concerns his comments regarding his last conversation with Tom Evans.
<br />
<br />
In the following quote, Joey says he and Tom argued about money being held in escrow. Joey blames Tom for the holdup, "your lawyers." Joey also says that "nobody can agree that that's what the deal is." This is in reference to an agreement in splitting publishing royalities:
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">"Tommy said 'We've got to sort this money thing out.' I said to him, 'We can't sort it out. I've spent every penny I've had, three times in my life, and come back to England to try to sort it out with your lawyers. And we can't do it. Nobody can agree that that's what the deal is.'"</span> (DISCoveries Magazine, 1991)
<br />
<br />
In 1982 and 1983, Tom clearly stated what was bothering him: <span style="color: red;">"He's suing me for the Apple money from 'Without You.' They're all trying to sue me now, They want the money from 'Without You.'"</span> Despite Tom's misuse of the word "sue," he was obviously upset about the royalty division of the song "Without You," the band's top money earner. Joey, Mike, and Bill Collins were seeking a greater percentage of that song than what Tom considered to be fair. If not for this one song, Tom would have <b>benefitted</b> from the division the others sought. So this first quote from Joey appears to be fairly accurate.
<br />
<br />
However, in the later quotes, Joey backtracks. He now says he and Tom did <b>not</b> discuss royalty divisions, or even talk about "Without You" at all:
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">"...For your information, when Tommy and I talked that last night we talked not about the money itself and who should get what but about how we could get the money out of the courts' hands and into ours. We disagreed how we could get it."</span> (8-30-2004, from Randy Justesen's Guestbook)
<br />
And this: <span style="color: red;">"I saw an article in something called Red Route, I think, where they used some passages from Matovina's writings about what Tommy and I talked, discussed, argued about on the phone the night of his suicide. I can assure you all that the "Without You" royalties were not."</span> (12-3-2003, from Randy Justesen's Guestbook)
<br />
<br />
Why is Joey now recanting? Well, perhaps he doesn't want people to know that the night before Tom killed himself that he argued with him about the royalties from "Without You." For Joey to admit they argued about Tom's song would make him look mercenary (if not villainous because of Tom's pending death).
<br />
<br />
Astronaut or not, Joey can't change his mind about his lunar descriptions and expect to be believed.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18406171.post-1131123358558405692005-11-04T10:41:00.002-06:002017-03-20T15:36:31.650-05:00<b><span style="font-size: 130%;">Thanks Owen. Here's My Response... </span></b>
<br />
<br />
I hope you don't mind but I moved your comments to the main board, as they are deserving of several answers:
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: green;">Bill - you may want to watch the Katz documentary again, - Mike Gibbins can't remember the name of the drummer that he replaced in the Iveys -but you don't seem to hold that against him. Joey never played in the Iveys, but for some reason you feel it is inexcusable for him to get Ron Griffith's name wrong. Why aren't you holding Mike up to the same standards? Don't get me wrong - I have alot of respect for Mike - I never had the chance to meet him, I wish I would have.You say you have never met Joey, and that you don't want to. That is hardly forming your own opinion. I guess you let other people make up your mind for you? Will this post get edited from your blog? The one I left on Kevin's sure got deleted in a hurry.</span>
<br />
<br />
Owen, thanks for the comments. I'd have to locate the filed-away Katz tape as I have long since gone DVD.
<br />
<br />
Anyway, I do remember Mike having a couple slip-ups as well (you'll note I did not put the entire "Dai Griffiths" blame on Joey either, but also on editing). Perhaps one big difference here is that the Katz documentary was "authorized" by Joey, who also claims to be the only "astronaut" capable of telling the Badfinger story. Mike never made such a claim. So yes, my standard for Joey is definitely higher than that for Mike. If Joey is the only self-proclaimed capable astronaut, he'd better be accurate in describing the moon.
<br />
<br />
No, I don't want to meet any musicians, actors or athletes (although I almost approached Joe Montana once in a moment of weakness). I admire artists for their artistry - not their personalities. And yes, the experiences of other people - <b>and evidence</b> - is sufficient for me to make up my mind. Especially if the witnesses are numerous, consistent, and in agreement. This is what is found in the "Without You" book. I also believe fans that know their favorite artist personally are more forgiving of blemishes than the artist's peers would be. This also is what is found in the "Without You" book; peers, professionals, and family evaluating the actions of each other - not fans. You'll note that there are many Michael Jackson fans who would walk through fire to defend him. The same with O.J. Simpson. They will say, "Hey, I've met him many, many times, and he's always been gracious to me. I can't believe he would do anything bad."
<br />
<br />
As far as deleting your comments - no way! I welcome your point of view and am delighted to discuss my position. The only comments I am deleting are spam. Thanks again.ßillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01487336031217432775noreply@blogger.com15