|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 17, 2005 3:11:19 GMT -5
Beatlies, is this the wacky site you were talking about? chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/display.php3?article_id=114578I was surprised this turned up in the "news" section of Google. To say they are misinformed is a serious understatement. Paul Lynde? Heh, well that's a stretch now cmon.. Only Paul Lynde could outdo Paul Lynde.. A pile of horsey droppings. What a rapier wit; what razor sharp analysis. And a notable command of facts. What amazied me most was his charitable attitude (..."The ugliest faces ever to appear on televsion: George had the face of Frankenstein, John the face of a witch, and Paul the face of an pig.") Such kind, warm, compassionate comments. I saw part of that before, like, 2 years ago, its like they've added more do-do to it or something. Spent the read saying to myself, "Oh, please", and "No he didn't!" and, "what a crock..." Oh well, even the dates were screwed up. Thourough researcher, yes, my-my. My rear end. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 17, 2005 3:34:33 GMT -5
I agree with all your points Darkhorse. But you just never know... Ya.... excellent points there, Dh. But on the other hand, if John was willin' to give trepanning a try & actually contemplated havin' a hole or 2 drilled thru his skull, gettin' drilled from the other end suddenly doesn't seem so bad!  Even I have to say, "ewwwwww", 'cause that's never been on my menu. It's OK for those who are fine with it. You know, a lot of guys have like this "platonic devotion" type thing goin' on without ever feeling inclined to "share equipment." I think if America were more European in outlook, a lot of guys that think they are gay would suddenly realize that maybe they're love options are a lot BROADer than they realized, and that all they really ever felt was that kind of, well, how embarrasing, but allright, I say it, that cuddley, warm and fuzzy closeness, but when the lights go out, it's seperate beds. I am not hear commenting on being gay. I am commenting on the confusion that may come from the "boxed-in" attitude toward male intimacy (the platonic kind) we have in the US. A lot of the frustration and over-fixation on it would fade away, and people could make more accurate determinations on what it is they want....... Now, I realize the greatest percentage of male heterosexuals have little or no inclination to be physically close, or touch (non-erotically or certainly erotically) another guy. Agreed. But for some, there are strong feelings of attachment that don't seek fulfillment in, well, adult private activities. Eh? And all gays aren't the same, too. It's weird. It does feel a bit weird, or daring for me to elaborate about this, but, since the topic is up, and most of you have "seen me around" NIR for awhile, well, what the heck.... As far as John gettin' drilled, I suspect that he'd a lot sooner have offered some head (to the trepan) than the aforementioned other option. Sometimes I just wanna stop euphemizing and just SAY it for Pete's sake...........but, breeding, taste, culture, and refinement just won't let me say the word "ass". However, nothing is stopping my fingers. Uhp! Don't get the wrong idea. |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 17, 2005 9:36:06 GMT -5
Whether or not John and Paul were 'trepaning' so to speak, i guess doesn't have much relevance in accordance to PID.
Personally I feel that George's comment says something. Sure 2 heterosexual men can love each deeply, but they were not father and son, nor were they brothers. They were best friends. But what was the struggle? When does the line get crossed? When does the deep love become homosexual? When they feel the need to be physically intimate? Does 'sex' define 'gay'? Love is love, it's unbiased, it knows no gender. Isn't that what it's all about? Love is all you need?
What went on behind closed doors on those cold and lonely nights.. is anyones guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 17, 2005 10:15:41 GMT -5
What went on behind closed doors on those cold and lonely nights.. is anyones guess. PL, you crack me up!  |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 17, 2005 17:19:44 GMT -5
Personally I feel that George's comment says something. Sure 2 heterosexual men can love each deeply, but they were not father and son, nor were they brothers. They were best friends. But what was the struggle? When does the line get crossed? When does the deep love become homosexual? When they feel the need to be physically intimate? Does 'sex' define 'gay'? Love is love, it's unbiased, it knows no gender. Isn't that what it's all about? Love is all you need? Excellent post there PL,.... & some good thought-provoking questions...... none of which I can answer! But... all silliness aside, I've always felt that John & Paul were very close, best friends & also sorta like brothers. I've never gotten the feeling that they were ever "lovers".... at least not in any physical sense.... Certainly not. The point I was tryin' to make (while also tryin' to be funny) was that John was willing to try damn near anything once, so who knows about him. I'm thinkin' John probably was experimenting with pretty much everything. |
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Aug 17, 2005 17:38:52 GMT -5
They loved each for sure. I think that picture John had in his studio of the two of them proves that.
But I doubt they were 'gay.' I'm sure at least Lennon experimented, but I think they were both confirmed womanizers in the day. Heck, we've pretty much accepted that Paul had several little Walruses running around from one-night stands.
Now, Asher was certainly Bill's "beard." No, I'm not saying Bill is gay either, but I really doubt he had a relationship with Asher. She had to play the part of the girlfriend until they could break it off.
But hey, if any of them did have homosexual feelings towards each other, more power to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by missvagabond on Aug 18, 2005 14:46:36 GMT -5
I saw part of that before, like, 2 years ago, its like they've added more do-do to it or something. Spent the read saying to myself, "Oh, please", and "No he didn't!" and, "what a crock..." Oh well, even the dates were screwed up. Thourough researcher, yes, my-my. My rear end. This is the most mean-spirited piece of trash I think I've ever read. They not only dissed the Beatles, but several very gifted players ( Jimmy Page and Eric Clapton are "2 note" players?! Huh?! They blamed everything on the Beatles. War, Famine, Pestilance - the cancelation of Ren And Stimpy!  They're completely idiotic! An probably mentally disturbed. It's all speculation and distorted facts. Any thing good that the Beatles have done is dismissed as "Deception". So they can't win. They're Human Beings. John made lots of mistakes and so did George. Rino and Paul aren't perfect. Nobody is...so the people who put that sleaze together are "Perfect?!"  Gimme a break, already!  The Beatles were the greatest Pop music group ever! They didn't suck gargantuos and grotesque-mountains of heavishly-massive upchucking-vomit! Lies! All lies! And it's all slander and totally based on bias. Of course, some people will think it's all true.  Ohhh! I'm really ticked off from reading that. It was soooo long and really negative. They dissed everybody but YES and a few talented other artists. Why are they so full of hatred! They claim that they're bringing some kind of truth into the light.. to what? Warn the masses? They're insane! They don't speak for most people. They're Bonkers! Wackos! Morons! Idiots! Wankers! Coo-Coo! Off the beaten path. Deadbeats! Drooing vegetables! Tender-Vittles-Snorting Zombies! [stupid] It's totally stupid [/stupid] Help is available.... |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 18, 2005 17:09:31 GMT -5
They blamed everything on the Beatles. - the cancelation of Ren And Stimpy! Now if I ever find out that The Beatles caused the cancelation of Ren & Stimpy, why I'll........ hmmmm, what would I do...... I'd be extreemly conflicted & not play any Beatles for a really long time!! So There!! |
|
|
|
Post by missvagabond on Aug 18, 2005 20:31:34 GMT -5
They blamed everything on the Beatles. - the cancelation of Ren And Stimpy! Now if I ever find out that The Beatles caused the cancelation of Ren & Stimpy, why I'll........ hmmmm, what would I do...... I'd be extreemly conflicted & not play any Beatles for a really long time!! So There!! ;D So would I to be perfectly honest. I mean they were great but...there's a limit! It would have to be a cause and effect type of deal; in order to blame Ren and Stimpys cruel and heartless removal from tv land on the Beatles. Let's hope that's not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 18, 2005 20:47:55 GMT -5
It would have to be a cause and effect type of deal; in order to blame Ren and Stimpys cruel and heartless removal from tv land on the Beatles. Let's hope that's not the case. Regarding removing Ren and Stimpy, it's the same thing they are doing with Howard Stern. Editing all of the "bad" talk everywhere, generally blocking free speech. |
|
|
|
Post by missvagabond on Aug 18, 2005 21:53:15 GMT -5
It would have to be a cause and effect type of deal; in order to blame Ren and Stimpys cruel and heartless removal from tv land on the Beatles. Let's hope that's not the case. Regarding removing Ren and Stimpy, it's the same thing they are doing with Howard Stern. Editing all of the "bad" talk everywhere, generally blocking free speech. They block out free speech and cut out bad language, but it's okay for 1000 different reality shows to have people treating each other like garbage. And pulling nasty tricks on each other. People can humiliate each other on tv, act like total morons - but the !@$%# words are out..ookkaaaay! I don't care for tv, partly because a lot of it's pretty much a wasteland - not all of it. I just find it either dull or stupid. ** Thank goodness there's American Idol to keep the quality of tv land from sinking any further into a pathetic heap of totally worthless trash. ** Yes I'm kidding! |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 18, 2005 23:29:54 GMT -5
Regarding removing Ren and Stimpy, it's the same thing they are doing with Howard Stern. Editing all of the "bad" talk everywhere, generally blocking free speech. They block out free speech and cut out bad language, but it's okay for 1000 different reality shows to have people treating each other like garbage. And pulling nasty tricks on each other. People can humiliate each other on tv, act like total morons - but the !@$%# words are out..ookkaaaay! I'm not a fan of reality TV, except shows like Myth Busters. What I find annoying is the constant bleeping on some of these shows, like on the Osbournes. It makes them unwatchable IMO. I'd rather they just blanked out the words, but they probably think that would be boring. What's entertaining is watching an edited-for-television movie to see how many different ways they can change R-rated swear words into silly PG phrases that are over-dubbed on top. |
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Aug 21, 2005 3:37:12 GMT -5
People, people --what's happened here? We were talking about whether Paul was gay, then replaced that with a discussion of John being gay, then somehow ended up with Ren and Stimpy.
JoJo, to answer your question: no, it was not that site I was speaking of that said JPM was hanging out with "communists" --the site I was referring to had a much shorter piece on the Beatles and Paul; I can't find it right now. However I have seen part of that "Beatles caused the disintegration of mankind" article you linked to. It has been posted on the indymedia sites for several years. It contains much wrong information but even in this there are some interesting and valuable statements.
The part about JPM twisting his ankle and sex with Mick Jagger at Brian Epstein's house --according to the official version did he injure his ankle at Brian Epstein's house? What about the "moped accident" and his bruised face and chipped tooth? It's not easy to fall of a moped and damage just the face --usually wrist, hand, leg injuries would also occur.
As for John's sexual orientation, it's been established that he had gay relationships --with Brian Epstein, possibly with Stu Sutcliffe, possibly with JPM (this is implied on bassist Klaus Voorman's Revolver cover); a visitor to the Dakota said John was "frankly bisexual" and in Goldman's book John and May Pang's friend guitarist Jesse Ed Davis is quoted as saying that John kissed him on the mouth and he pushed him away in revulsion.
Lennon makes an important contrast with Paul McCartney --we know he had many girlfriends and was passionately in love with three --- Cynthia, Yoko and May Pang. In addition to those women, he is also documented to have had sex with Thelma Pickles, a Chinese-Australian woman who later became a well known fashion designer (in Goldman's book), and Joan Baez (the daughter of a top nuclear weapons designer and a COINTELPRO CIA agent, but that's another not unrelated story). Also a number of others.
Paul McCartney in this aspect is like he is in so many other topics "the man who isn't there." So unbelievably little on his personal life you'd think a concerted effort was being made to erase and falsify his history --that is in fact exactly what's happening. Nobody offered any information on his previous girlfriends or sweethearts pre-Jane Asher in response to my posting so I looked myself and found only one name comes up: DOROTHY RHONE. What incredibly small amount of data on Ms. Rhone that there is available seems a series of faked and contradictory statements coming from paid liar Bill Sheppard, Cynthia, and allegedly Rhone herself.
The same article on the web, for example, claims that it could either be true that Rhone dumped Paul herself in 1961 after a detached, long distance Liverpool-Hamburg non-relationship or that Paul dumped Rhone a year later in 1962 in a maudlin scene after Paul's supposed infidelities to her. It also says that Rhone, 16, became pregnant by Paul, 17, and had a miscarriage three months into her pregnancy !
Rhone moved to CANADA and married a German; she named one of her children Astrid, after Astrid Kirchherr (she had been friends with Cynthia and Astrid). While in CANADA she is said to have met with Bill Sheppard who was on tour with "wings". Rhone has maintained near-complete silence about Paul and the Beatles, very much like the other possible false facade for Paul, the actor since a child -Jane Asher.
About Jane Asher, I found that her father, a prominent M.D. and psychologist who watched over JPM in the room he inhabited in the Ashers' house, "committed suicide with alcohol and barbiturates" in 1979. Maybe part of the wave of assassinations in the latter half of the 1970s ---Mal Evans 1976 shot by the Los Angeles police in his house, Dr. Asher 1979, John Lennon at the "Manson Connection Rosemary's Baby" fascist Cuban Exile guarded Dakota.
There are no other women in JPM's life apart from his frightened-into-silence alleged girlfriends Jane Asher and Dorothy Rhone. None that appear in the historical literature I see anyway.
Jojo: do you find it intriguing that so much effort went into the indymedia piece and they missed or pretended to miss that Paul had been substituted with an imposter?
This isn't just gossip, I think it could be central to the reason JPM disappeared from view and was replaced
(theory in development).
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 21, 2005 5:47:19 GMT -5
Beatlies--all that in your post above is very intriguing and I hear you on all counts.
The possibility that Paul might have been other than what we think he was, exists. From listening to a Nagra tape, and weighing those ideas, plus noticing some general body language things I subtly detect in a frame or two of him------I think he may have been socially reclusive. He was animated, and his outbursts in odd moments, comic, tend to be of, what my mother has called (in her peculiar terminology) "reverting to typical schisms", i.e., acting "out" a little bit. I am not saying he was or he wasn't. I am saying that there are only fragmentary scenes, isolated pictures, a handful of record covers, and a stray clip here and there, and frankly, when I see someone do an interview with his face planted cozily in his hand, and leaning on a table for supprt (a la Jack Benny) I have my questions.......
I have not hidden my orientation. Now, these little mannerisms aren't always an indication; I have straight friends who "queen it up to the hilt" on occasion, usually actors who are secure in their own preferences.
There is a gloomy direction all our theories could take if this is any sign.
I do not want to go there. But frankly, I am starting to have a vibe about it, one I don't like at all. It involves alcohol, getting high, clandestined night-spots, and some unpleasant violence born out of jealousy, depression, or a criminal assault.
A sort of "gay Mr. Goodbar scenario." The perfect thing to keep away from doting adolescent ears.
That type of idea makes me very unhappy. Folks, help me to prove that line of thought to be wrong. 'd like to come back to this thread and say, *whew* thank God I was wrong about that one.
I don't like the 'nasty car-wreck theory' very much either, but face it, sudden and secretive death at 24 years old seldom has a "bluebirds and lemon-drops" sounding explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 21, 2005 8:39:07 GMT -5
Beatlies, are you basing most of your information on Albert Goldman's book, The Lives of John Lennon? Some people feel this book is a load of baloney, which it is imo. It seems to me that the author was trying to create these outrageous depictions of John so he could sell his book!
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 21, 2005 8:41:10 GMT -5
People, people --what's happened here? We were talking about whether Paul was gay, then replaced that with a discussion of John being gay, then somehow ended up with Ren and Stimpy. ...maybe that's about how serious everyone takes this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 21, 2005 8:43:35 GMT -5
Doc.. It doesn't need to be as gloomy as that  |
|
|
|
Post by missvagabond on Aug 21, 2005 8:48:48 GMT -5
People, people --what's happened here? We were talking about whether Paul was gay, then replaced that with a discussion of John being gay, then somehow ended up with Ren and Stimpy. Ren and Stimpy were replaced by inferior cartoon shows - if that isn't relavent, then I don't know what is!  We Miss You Both So Much! Unless Pauls moterbike flipped over and he broke the fall with his face - then he could've avoided injuries to anywhere else on his body. None of that proves anything. I personally haven't seen any real proof that has was anything but straight. None of us were there - some of us weren't even alive until long after the Beatles broke up. But unless you absolutely know and can prove that he (John) was gay, I don't see how anybody can say he was. John Lennon lived in an apartment bulding in New York city. I doubt he moved to the Dakota for any other reason than somebody suggested it because it was well known. Or maybe he just thought it was an interesting looking buiding in a good location. I don't think there's any conspiracy behind it. John was so wasted on drugs at the time that I'd be surprised if he even remembered what street he lived on for the first few weeks. I'll bet he got lost a few times wandering around Manhattan. ;D Before Jane Asher, Paul was like, with all kinds of girls and went on dates. But who cares about that! Do we need to know every last detail of his teen years?! So what if we don't know who he dated in Hamburg, Germany, if at all. I don't see how it matters now. I just find all these suggestions of Paul being gay to be really gross. There's no proof outside of speculation and a few suggestive remarks or isolated comments that still prove nothing. But I really think it's way off. This is going down the "Paul was possibly murdered by a scorned gay lover" or "Killed off because he wouldn't (or couldn't) suppress his gay lifestyle" road. This is 'Harlequin Romance' territory.. Personally, I don't see any evidence that Paul or John was gay. And I don't understand all these references to "gay"conspiracies or where John lived. It just seems so unbelievable and only complicates things. Unless there's real proof it's all just guessing and doesn't do anything to solve what happened to Paul, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 21, 2005 9:01:43 GMT -5
Girlfriends Paul had that I have seen documented; Linda Thorpe Layla Julie Arthur Celia Thelma Pickles (shared w/John)  Dorothy Rhone Cory Sentrop Ruth Lallemannd Erika Hubers Anita Cochrane Iris Caldwell Sandra Cogan Julie Felix Maggie McGivern Winona Williams Jane Asher and I'm sure they are a hell of alot more! If Paul and John were gay.. well that's awesome! Good for them. But as I said before it really has no relevance to Paul is Dead. |
|
|
|
Post by missvagabond on Aug 21, 2005 9:13:34 GMT -5
Girlfriends Paul had that I have seen documented; Linda Thorpe Layla Julie Arthur Celia Thelma Pickles (shared w/John) Dorothy Rhone Cory Sentrop Ruth Lallemannd Erika Hubers Anita Cochrane Iris Caldwell Sandra Cogan Julie Felix Maggie McGivern Winona Williams Jane Asher and I'm sure they are a hell of alot more! If Paul and John were gay.. well that's awesome! Good for them. But as I said before it really has no relevance to Paul is Dead. That's a pretty seriously long list. ;D I don't think it has anything to do with PID either. As people have pointed out here, European males mannerisms are a little different than North Americans at times. And that's probably a generalisation - but there's some truth to it. It's just that different cultures have their own unique vocal and body languages. Again, nobody's ever suggested that Paul was gay that I've ever read in any books or mags. I haven't heard of any musicians from the 1960's come forward and say they thought he was gay. Outside of the Beatles poking fun at themselves. They made some jokes and kidded the media. That doesn't mean that any of them were gay. It just means they had a sense of humor. But I at least credit Doc' because he's basically saying that he umm..he's "Got A Feeling" that Paul might've been that way. But he's willing to consider that he might be mistaken and not claiming it as some conspirital "fact." |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 21, 2005 9:18:41 GMT -5
Wouldn't really suprise me if they were, truth be told. The need for something real can often send you to places you never expected to go. But it's neither here nor there |
|
|
|
Post by missvagabond on Aug 21, 2005 9:39:54 GMT -5
In a stunning and totally unprecedentend change of pace, I am bringing this thread back to it's original point. just some snippets from a 2004 interview; "Life is bloody dark and awful," says Asher, finally dropping the game-playing. "It doesn't mean I go round being permanently depressed. But I would if I really started to think about things. I don't think there's any meaning to anything. I have slightly more of an acceptance that you're hurtling towards the abyss. At least you won't know anything once you're in it."
Why Asher might feel that even the happiest family is just one step away from catastrophe. I wonder, too, whether a similar desire to avoid pain explains the other great denial in her life: her relationship with Paul McCartney.
Asher met him on April 18, 1963, two weeks after her 17th birthday, having been sent by the Radio Times to interview the Beatles.
Asher's mother invited McCartney to live in the family home. There, he and Lennon wrote I Want to Hold Your Hand and several more of McCartney's greatest songs, including We Can Work It Out, said to be inspired by his relationship with Jane. His fellow Beatles assumed the couple would marry, but Paul ended up with the American photographer Linda Eastman.
Asher has never said a word about the relationship, or the Beatles, since. I have no expectation whatever that she will break her silence for me. But I am curious about why, after all these years, she will not share her experience of one of the great cultural phenomena of the past century.
"I realise I'm hypersensitive and probably slightly paranoid," she says, "but clearly the major connection with all that is personal. And because I've been happily married for 30-something years, it's insulting [to her husband and family]." Jane Asher seems like she's suffering because she knows what happened and can't say what she knows. I really think that part of it is that she wants to defend Paul, and maybe even Bill by keeping quiet. She also might know that lot's of people would be hurt, and even embarrassed by the truth coming out. But I also think it's neither here or there, Penny. All the Beatles were, IMHO, serious about making the best music they could and trying to share their abilites and gifts. All 5 of them. While I agree some people were involved in the whole cover up, maybe even from way up high in the umm..Hierarchy, I don't think that their personal lifestyles were the main concern. |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 21, 2005 13:53:08 GMT -5
People, people --what's happened here? We were talking about whether Paul was gay, then replaced that with a discussion of John being gay, then somehow ended up with Ren and Stimpy. Well things may wander off topic here, but slapping people on the wrist for not being "serious enough" is not our thing.. We'll get to where we're headed eventually. Well, that's an easy one, that is missed in just about every piece ever written about the Beatles. Yes, this one claims to "expose" new information, but that is mostly opinion about how they and other rock groups "corrupted our youth" with innuendo that supposedly backs that up, i.e. they were secretly in homosexual affairs, therefore (shock! horror!) that proves it. (something I, and anyone with any common sense rejects) I think he was replaced because he wasn't around anymore.. Whether there was foul play or not is a subject of contention of course. Funny coincidence, this happened to me once, and I scraped my hand a little bit, but the part that got really beat up was my chin, needed stitches. I was wearing a helmet thank God, but not a full face one, and the scar is still there to this day. (this was 20 years ago) I re-read the Fred Seaman book, and that remark I made a few posts back is not there, perhaps I read it in the Goldman book. There are some interesting passages in that book, I may post them in another thread. As for the Goldman book, there is some useful information, I think people need to be able to separate the nuggets from the BS. All I can advise is to read it first before passing judgment. |
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 21, 2005 18:20:18 GMT -5
Weren't Mick & Keef found in bed together?
They ripped everything *else* off from the Beatles, so . . . ?
|
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Sept 10, 2005 4:38:48 GMT -5
Some information about Jane's older brother, Peter Asher, of "Peter and Gordon." He was a major rock star, then suddenly quit singing in 1967 !
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Peter Asher (born on June 22, 1944 in London, England) is a guitarist, singer and record producer.
Asher is best known as "Peter" of 1960s duo Peter & Gordon, whose biggest hit was "World Without Love"; since Peter & Gordon disbanded, Asher has enjoyed great success as a producer.
While attending the Westminster School for Boys, he first met fellow student Gordon Waller, and together they began playing together as a duo — Peter & Gordon.
Asher is the older brother of actress and businesswoman Jane Asher, who in the mid-1960s was girlfriend of The Beatles' Paul McCartney. Through this connection he and Waller were often given unrecorded Lennon-McCartney songs to perform, most notably their first and biggest hit, 1964's decidedly Beatlesque "World Without Love." After Peter & Gordon disbanded in 1968, Asher took charge of the A&R department at the Beatles' Apple Records label, where he signed a then-unknown James Taylor and agreed to produce the singer-songwriter's debut solo album. The album was not a success, but Asher was so convinced that Taylor held great potential, that he resigned his post at Apple to move to the United States and work as Taylor's manager; he managed Taylor and produced his albums over several decades.
Asher also played a role in shaping the mellow California rock sound prominent during the 1970s, producing records for Linda Ronstadt, J. D. Souther, Andrew Gold and Bonnie Raitt. In the 1980s, Asher also worked on hit albums for artists as diverse as Cher to 10,000 Maniacs.
|
|
