...Four deaths to the Beatles small inner circle can be at least partly attributed to the group's success...
Who were they?
John Lennon and Brian Epstein for sure. Not sure about the other two. Mal Evans maybe?
It could also be argued that Pete Ham and Tom Evans of Badfinger would probably not have committed suicide if they wouldn't have been discovered by The Beatles.
Stuart Sutcliffe?
Quote from: peterbell1 on Jan 25, 2012, 04:47 AM
Stuart Sutcliffe?
Stuarts death had nothing to do with his membership of The Beatles.
Quote from: Bobber on Jan 25, 2012, 04:55 AM
Stuarts death had nothing to do with his membership of The Beatles.
dito
Quote from: Bobber on Jan 25, 2012, 04:55 AM
Stuarts death had nothing to do with his membership of The Beatles.
Besides, the question was "deaths to the Beatles small inner circle can be at least partly attributed to the group's success", and he died before they even became successful.
You guys are good...Lennon, Epstein, Mal Evans and Sutcliffe.
Sutcliffe's death had everything to do with the Beatles as they were popular enough to be beaten up by jealous guys.
Had they been a lousy band that nobody went to see, he'd have lived.
Quote from: Nada Surf on Jan 25, 2012, 12:30 PM
Sutcliffe's death had everything to do with the Beatles as they were popular enough to be beaten up by jealous guys.
Oh come on, that is identified as a myth since long. The injuries that Stu had after that night with that fight, were NOT the cause of his death a few years later.
Read this: http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=6628.msg258837#msg258837 (http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=6628.msg258837#msg258837)
I don't know why I was directed to Lennon causing Sutcliffe's death, but as far as I know, Sutcliffe's death was caused by a blow to the head and has been written that way many times of late, including Lewisohn...
I never said Lennon caused Sutclifffe's death. I read it was a gang that caught him after a show.
Lennon was capable of killing someone, but I wasn't insinuating he did it.
Interesting stuff, though.
There's been a lot on myths. Stu could have been hit on the head by a gang after a show and it probably happened. But, as has been pointed out, this could not have been the cause of Stu's death. Of course, the story is much more interesting if this fight would have led to Stu's death. It's much more rock and roll to die because of a fight than of a stupid weak vein.
But this is the way it's been written for years...And it's still being written this way.
That's because everybody's just copying... It is also written that Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds was written after Julian came home with a drawing of it. It's all nonsense. Now, if somebody would really care to do some research. I have an admiration for writers like Eric Krasker who goes in details.
You seem pretty upset with this, Bobber.
Upset is another word. But I am on a quest, that's true. It's like the North Koreans believing that Kim Jong Il was the best president ever and the whole world is against them. If you're told things over and over and over again, one might start to believe that it actually might be true. One writer (Ive read the Stu story in Alan Williams book and Pauline Sutcliffe also said something about this) suggests something and the next writer takes it as the truth. It's not. Especially when it comes to the early Beatles days, there's a lot of myths. But myths don't become the truth when they're repeated over and over again. Think for yourself. :D
You claiming that I can't think for myself?
I'm claiming nothing. I'm just referring to a Beatles song you might know.
The way I'm reading this, one guy thinks Sutcliffe was NOT killed by a blow to the head...
And I have to admit, it's interesting and I'll look into it...
But, the Sutcliffe family thinks he was killed by a blow or blows to the head.
It's been documented that he was kicked in the head in at least one fight and probably two and might have been also kicked by Lennon who was the type who would turn on a friend and kick him in the head and admitted so.
It's been well documented that Kim Jong Il was born in a volcano in North Korea.
It's not important what the Sutcliffe family thinks. It's the facts that does.
Quote from: Bobber on Jan 26, 2012, 04:03 AM
It's been well documented that Kim Jong Il was born in a volcano in North Korea.
It's not important what the Sutcliffe family thinks. It's the facts that does.
So, the final report by Liverpool or Hamburg coroners on Sutcliffe's death states that he was NOT killed by a blow to the head?
I must admit to having believed the "blow on the head" theory up til now, but having just read that thread and that very long post from the neuro nurse, I would say that, in the absence of stronger medical evidence, which I doubt will ever come to light now anyway, I tend to believe that person's theory. Their summary is taken from what Bobber quoted above .....
"... the two causes of death that best fit the scenario are Aneurysm and AVM, both congenital and unrelated to any blow to the head. None of the causes of death from a blow to the head fit the time frames or history we have on Stu. More importantly to this discussion, John was not with Stu in the four months prior to his death. No head trauma causes cerebral bleeding and death that long after injury. Therefore, John could not have been responsible for Stu's death."
Quote from: Nada Surf on Jan 25, 2012, 12:30 PM
You guys are good...Lennon, Epstein, Mal Evans and Sutcliffe.
Why was Mal's death anything to do with The Beatles success? I thought he was depressed because his wife had left him, or something like that, and someone called the police because he was threatening to kill himself with a rifle. He pointed the rifle at the police when they arrived and he was shot by them. What's that got to do with The Beatles?
Quote from: Bobber on Jan 25, 2012, 01:49 PM
Oh come on, that is identified as a myth since long. The injuries that Stu had after that night with that fight, were NOT the cause of his death a few years later.
Read this: http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=6628.msg258837#msg258837 (http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=6628.msg258837#msg258837)
Thanks for posting that link. This is something I've always wondered about.
I found the article interesting too and I have to admit it was the first I'd seen of this...
Sutcliffe was supposedly kicked in the head in 1960, so it's definitely possible the blow didn't cause his death at all.
But even Lewisohn is still writing as fact, as far as I know...He digs everywhere.
There's a complete chapter on Stuart's death in Eric Krasker's book. Eric is a member on this forum and there's a lot of information on this book in the book section.
Quote from: Nada Surf on Jan 26, 2012, 12:33 PM
But even Lewisohn is still writing as fact, as far as I know...He digs everywhere.
I have searched for this in Lewisohn's Chronicle, but couldn't find it. Could you help me out please?
I put Mal in this because, according to his friends and relatives, his life was a mess once the Beatles had no use for him anymore and he plunged into depression.
Or why not just do it here...
What Seinfeld episode did George get married to Susan?
Surely George's death - or perhaps, the timing of it - was connected to his membership of The Beatles?
It would take a lot to convince me that the knife attack he suffered at the end of 1999 didn't contribute significantly to hastening his demise within two years.
And that attack was, like John's, the result of being a Beatle. I recall some typically droll quip from George himself along the lines of "this sort of thing never happens to The Rolling Stones!"