“THE BEATLES are not merely awful … they are so unbelievably horrible … so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically opposed to the magic of the art, they qualify as the crowned heads of anti-music.”
That was William F. Buckley, weighing in on the Liverpool boys early during their reign. History has proven Mr. Buckley wrong, but he probably never changed his original opinion.
* * *
SINCE THE deaths of John Lennon and George Harrison, Paul McCartney has stated, and quite correctly, that there can never really be a “Beatles reunion,” even though the redoubtable and oft-underrated Ringo is still among us. Just forget it, Paul has said.
But maybe on this point he is mellowing a bit. I hear from several highly placed music sources in Los Angeles, that Paul has mused, more than once, on some kind of “Beatles re-boot.” Even those to whom he has mentioned this possibility aren’t sure if he’s just throwing the idea around to make people crazy. But he has gone so far as to say the band would comprise him (naturally!), Ringo, Ringo’s son, Zak Starkey, Julian Lennon (John’s son by first wife Cynthia), Sean Lennon (John and Yoko Ono’s son), and Dhani Harrison, the son of George. Paul’s son James might also pitch in.
The “plan,” such as it has been loosely laid out by Paul, is that it would be just a few performances in London, for charity — the guys all singing Beatles songs from every era — from the “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” pop stuff to the groundbreaking sounds of “Sgt. Pepper”, “The White Album” “Let In Be” and “Abbey Road.”
One of my sources on this story is Bay area musician and journalist Steve Escobar. He says he has heard the rumor so often lately he feels sure there has to be merit to it. Also, he adds that both of Lennon’s sons have remained friendly with McCartney. As have the kids of Ringo and George.
So, tragically, though it can’t be a full reunion, if it happens it will be one that’s pure, with plenty of heart, and still starring two of the finest musicians in the world. They were part of one of the great bands of all time — the greatest, according to many.
* * *
THE LAST time I thought about Bradley Cooper was when I saw his terrific movie, “Limitless.” It did occur to me, after I left the theater, that he was publicly squiring my friend Renee Zelwegger. When I saw her in Texas, I had forgotten to ask about her three-year “romance” with Bradley. We had eventually found ourselves in much more serious and interesting talk — about the Internet, the universe, the absurdities of stardom. Well, maybe it was a good thing I didn’t mention Mr. Cooper, because within days of handing Renee her Austin Film Society Hall of Fame award, it was announced that Miss Z. and Mr. C had parted.
Now comes word — via the ever reliable weekly glossies — that Mr. Bradley has moved on to another lovely blonde star. I do mean Jennifer Aniston.
Naturally, because we are talking about Jennifer, the magazines have to make her out to be some kind of romantic victim — she is “in over her head”….”fantasizes about having a baby with Bradley”… “she feels he could be the one.” But, these insiders insist Bradley is “a known fame-seeker, using his charm and good looks to get close to the A-list.”
Really? Since at least the release of “The Hangover” Mr. Cooper hardly needs to hang around with famous women to “get close to the A-list.” He is the A-list.
As for Miss Aniston, what the hell is the matter with being forty and single, looking great, having a nice career and not moaning publicly about your “biological clock?” Jennifer never seems at a loss for male admirers.
In these tabloid articles, friends “always fear” for Miss Aniston. If these “friends” exist, I’d advise them to look to their own lives. Jennifer Aniston seems just fine.
* * *
I COULD wring the neck of my old pal Madonna. She looked spectacular at the Alexander McQueen tribute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art the other evening. The iconic star wore a gorgeous blue gown that fit her like a glove and was in every way suitable to her alluring maturity and her soon-to-be lauded efforts as the director of “W.E.”
But what did M have to say when asked how she felt? “I feel fat in this dress!” she said. I’m sure designer Stella McCartney loved that!
La Ciccone looked in fact, healthy, trim, but rounded in all the right places. She even cut her hair a few inches which makes a big (positive) difference.
I wish she’d stop this foolishness. If she gained twenty pounds she wouldn’t be fat. It’s okay to be a little voluptuous.
Indeed, I caught Madonna and Warren Beatty in their 1990 film “Dick Tracy” the other night. He insisted she put on weight. She did (they were romancing at the time) and she has rarely looked better onscreen. And she’s terrif in that movie too. My favorite scene is when Warren (as Dick) goes backstage to visit M (cabaret singer Breathless Mahoney) whose gangster lover, Lips, has just been killed.
“No tears for Lips?” asks Tracy
“I’m wearing black underwear.”
“I wonder whose side you’re on” Tracy presses.
“”The side I’m always on,” replies Breathless, “Mine!”
I recall when I saw this movie at an early screening, the audience went wild over that line; it seemed to confirm and conform to her public image — the ruthless, ambitious, sexually predatory diva.
She was some of that, but less than she led people to believe. She’s quite different now. But she still has a fine, sane, disregard for public opinion. And she’s still much nicer than she lets on.