| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sometimesmylifeissoeerie |
Posted - 14/08/2007 : 04:05:29
I was lucky enough to find this book by Michael Stuart-Ware at a library.
I must admit that I was a bit turned off on this book by reading what some people here were saying about it (and Michael) when it first came out, but now that I've read it, I don't understand what the complaints were about.
It's an autobiography of MSW up to the time he decided to leave the music business, including of course, his two year stint with LOVE.
Before he joined LOVE, he was the drummer for the Sons of Adam, who LOVE admired greatly, enough to give them "Feathered Fish" (which I've never heard) and "7 and 7 Is"(which they turned down).
After many offers from LOVE, MSW replaced "Snoopy" as drummer and played on "Da Capo" and "Forever Changes".
I was surprised at the portrait MSW paints of AL during those two years as more of a very talented but mean-spirited creep, than the complete lunatic AL seems to have tried to project himself as to the press and his fans.
As usual, the truth is always more mundane than the legend.
This fits in pretty well with what we've heard about him from another member of LOVE (Jay Donellan)who posts here.
AL seems to have enjoyed putting his band members down when he wasn't happy with how things were going, and seemed to side with Electra when it came to using studio musicians instead of the LOVE band to record Forever Changes.
AL seemed to have been closer to Johnny Echols than the other guys in the band and usually only spoke to the other guys when he wanted to get his way about something, and usually ordered them around like the coach of a basketball team (which is how MSW thought AL basically saw the world- being that he was known as a high school basketball star as a teen).
There is more interaction with the other guys in the band on MSW's part than with AL, and there are endless stories of Snoopy, Kenny, Johnny (all of whom MSW lived with) and Bryan's time with the band.
MSW seemed to be more level-headed than the other guys in the band, and he doesn't seem to have any hidden agenda in writing this book.
I never knew the story about Jim Morrison skinny-dipping in AL's pool and being castigated by AL when he was caught!
AL got very upset when anyone messed with his house (he also berated a guy who was trying to make a documentary about LOVE, and went in AL's house when AL was out.
This fits in very well with why AL had to do 6 years of hard time.
Musically, it seemed to be that AL would have everything mapped out in his mind (or on paper- it's not clear whether AL wrote out individual parts for the guys, or just chord changes and bass notes and beats)and then rehearsed them till they were ready to record.
This holds true with how Jay Donnelan described the "Four Sail" sessions, but I'm not sure if they rehearsed first. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| barbinberkeley |
Posted - 31/08/2007 : 22:46:30
In this book I got called Riot on Sunset Strip in which Arthur Lee wrote the foreword, he said that he had written an autobiography called Rainbow in the Storm. The foreward was written in 2004, and the book just came out this last June. It was Arthur's story as told to Chris Boyle. I wonder whatever happened to it? |
| rocker |
Posted - 28/08/2007 : 14:09:34
You know as far as the bio I just wonder who could ever do it. That someone would have to 'know' Arthur a bit, his life and his wanderings and have an understanding of music-making and the biz. |
| Alone Again |
Posted - 27/08/2007 : 23:59:36
Yea we should probably get back to the original topic the Pegasus Carousel which i myself recently finished for the first time & i couldnt put it down i found it a very compelling read.not much insight into Arthur Lee but with good reason as Micheal didnt have much contact with him but it was great to read about the inner workings of the band.it'd be great to read an Arthur Lee biography but until someone writes one this is the only insight into Love and Arthur and it is a pretty good one. |
| John9 |
Posted - 27/08/2007 : 22:10:19
As I suggested a couple of days ago, let the poor man rest in peace - surely we his fans, owe him that much. |
| kdion11 |
Posted - 27/08/2007 : 21:17:06
Scully earlier wrote:
[/quote]
You come on like a lawyer ('lets see the charges again') but you don't really know what you're talking about. Even the prosecutors would have balked at a charge of attempted murder.
KD: Hey Scully - yep 25 years in the music biz will do that for
you ! Sorry pal, but I do know what I'm talking about as I was in
touch with Arthur's legal team at the time of his incarceration while negotiating the release of Electrically Speaking. Read my original quote again -
"2: Attempted murder (? - not sure if he was charged with this)"
Scully: Arthur had served time before (actually for violating parole) he subsequently stated that he had pled guilty to something he hadn't done, to avoid risking a more serious sentence, but obviously couldn't comply with his parole.
KD: And an other time before that for assult. Get your facts straight yourself !
Scully: He denied firing the gun that night, and gunpowder residue tests taken that night were negative. Had he pled guilty, like a nice ex-con he would have got NINE MONTHS in jail, the fact is the sentence he received was way out of proportion to the crime, because he chose to go to trial, denied the charges and generally behaved like an innocent man would. He got punished for that.
KD: And in retrospect it would have behooved him to plead guilty, serve the 9 months and get on the straight and narrow. Too bad for him he tried to fight city hall and lost ! You've also conveniently forgotten the other serious charges: Being a convicted ex con / felon in possesion of a weapon, and being a convicted ex con / felon
in possesion of ILLEGAL cop killing dum dum bullets. Very serious charges for someone on parole and being an ex con. That would have sent him to prison without the gun going off anyway ! Any info on whether or not Doug Thomas had any gun residue on his hands ? If they found some on him it would have helped Arthur - don't think they found any.
Scully: Arthur was flawed (aren't we all) and made some bad choices. He had substance abuse problems. He shouldn't have had a gun in the house.
KD: You got that right - his charges, his choices - his jail term. So much for "trumped up charges and being rail roaded".
Scully: But is the subtext of your post is that he intended to kill his neighbour (for having the nerve to complain) then go on some 'armour piercing' rampage? I don't think so.
KD: Well that's what the judge, jury and District Attorney thought, never mind the freaked out next door neighbor. Why do you think he called 911 in the first place ? You think he just wanted to get his name in the paper or something ? Once again folks, you pull guns on enough people and bad things generally happen - TO YOU !
Don't forget, in the end the court itself agreed that he'd been railroaded:
KD: Never heard that one. If Arthur was truely "rail roaded" why the hell didn't he sue the County of LA ? Why ? Because he was guilty of at least the majority of the charges - possesion of the gun and possesion of the illegal ammo - which once again was enough to send him down the river. Sugar coat this anyway you want, but convicted felons guilty of stuff like this generally go to prison. The judge and the DA don't care if you are a famous or talented musician.
Scully: The court reversed Arthur's conviction, citing misconduct by the prosecutor and ineffective assistance by his trial attorney. According to Jeffery Anderson, a legal reporter for the LA Daiy Journal, ..."when it was over, Lee walked out a free man, pleading no contest to the shooting charge and having served more than the required time for the possession charge".
KD: Pleading "no contest" is akin to a guilty plea - so much for over turning his conviction. Get your facts straight.
Free the pleas !
|
| rocker |
Posted - 27/08/2007 : 15:20:55
Yes, Arthur a "flawed genius", pretty apt. As I've said before around here, I just don't really "understand" why I enjoy FC as a great work of musical art. It just works for me. I guess I don't want to put it under any more analysis. But what I do know is that I think the world gets guys like Arthur who at times is like a square peg in a round hole and that we, who kind of sit on the sidelines, can get a glimpse of what it means to go the edge. Arthur and I are two different people and we certainly had different conceptions of life and our lives. But the weird thing in all of this is I got where he was coming from.He opened up a coupla doors. |
| barbinberkeley |
Posted - 27/08/2007 : 05:46:34
Hey Scully, I just got here and I can see it's gonna be an interesting site. I thank you for the synopsis of the court case. It's very nice to deal with facts instead of rumour and smears on someone who's not around to defend themselves. |
| John9 |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 20:42:30
Yes Scully - I definitely agree with that. I certainly would not be without the memory of that 2002 Manchester gig for anything. |
| scully |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 19:06:52
John,
Yep, the habitual offender (3 strikes law) did come into this -- the conviction of an offender of a 3rd felony regardless of whether the previous 2 felonies were convicted at the same trial, were plea bargins, or were committed before the introduction of the habitual offender act, is punishable by upto life imprisonment.
I certainly don't want to discuss this, there are much better things to talk about. My point was just that in the end (at the appeal) even the COURT recognised that Arthur was treated in an extreme way, and fortunately set him free to come and play for us all again. Had he had to serve the full sentence (or even if he been paroled at 85% of the sentence) we would not have had those memories. |
| John9 |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 16:37:52
Doesn't California's 'Three strikes and you're out' come into all this somewhere? I am not certain how serious the third conviction would have to be to trigger the big sentence - but I would have thought that illegal possession of a firearm would have been viewed as significant. I suppose that one would have to know the precise nature of his earlier convictions to be able to comment further. But I say let the man rest in peace. He certainly paid for whatever he did wrong and I think that all this will amount to little more than a footnote in the great scheme of things. But his intelligence, his humour and eccentricity, his humanity - and above all, his music ....those are the things that will win him his place in history .... and they will always be there for us to cherish. |
| scully |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 12:42:30
quote:
Originally posted by kdion11
quote:
Originally posted by Arnstein
But what were the gun fired at? Something outside the house?
KD: Over the head of his next door neighbor apparently who
had the audacity to complain about Arthur's stereo being too
loud. Let's see the charges again shall we ?
# 1: Reckless discharge of a fire arm in a residential neighborhood
# 2: Attempted murder (? - not sure if he was charged with this)
# 3: Being a convicted felon and ex con, in possesion of an illegal fire arm
# 4: Being a convicted felon and ex con in possesion of armor piercing, illegal "dum dum" bullets.
Sounds like a big problem for Arthur, who I think at that point had already served at least 2 other prison terms in the '70's and or '80s. Can't really compare that to Crosby's run ins with the law.
Free the sentences !
You come on like a lawyer ('lets see the charges again') but you don't really know what you're talking about. Even the prosecutors would have balked at a charge of attempted murder.
Arthur had served time before (actually for violating parole) he subsequently stated that he had pled guilty to something he hadn't done, to avoid risking a more serious sentence, but obviously couldn't comply with his parole.
He denied firing the gun that night, and gunpowder residue tests taken that night were negative. Had he pled guilty, like a nice ex-con he would have got NINE MONTHS in jail, the fact is the sentence he received was way out of proportion to the crime, because he chose to go to trial, denied the charges and generally behaved like an innocent man would. He got punished for that.
Arthur was flawed (aren't we all) and made some bad choices. He had substance abuse problems. He shouldn't have had a gun in the house.
But is the subtext of your post is that he intended to kill his neighbour (for having the nerve to complain) then go on some 'armour piercing' rampage? I don't think so.
Don't forget, in the end the court itself agreed that he'd been railroaded:
The court reversed Arthur's conviction, citing misconduct by the prosecutor and ineffective assistance by his trial attorney. According to Jeffery Anderson, a legal reporter for the LA Daiy Journal, ..."when it was over, Lee walked out a free man, pleading no contest to the shooting charge and having served more than the required time for the possession charge". "[The law] allows a defendant to plead to something he didn't do if it's in his best interests," Hirsch (Arthur's lawyer) said later. "In Arthur's case, the option of going to trial is just too uncertain, particularly with so much going on in his life musically." Also, Arthur was granted the opportunity to return to court in six months and have the original charge reduced to a misdemeanor.
Had this NOT happened, Arthur may have died in jail, rather than have played all those wonderful shows. |
| John9 |
Posted - 24/08/2007 : 01:10:07
In a recent radio interview, Joan Plowright was asked about the darker side of her late husband, Laurence Olivier. She replied that a true genius often carries the curse of being "attended by demons". I have always believed this to be the case with Arthur - and what happened back in 1996 would seem to fit entirely into a pattern of erratic and self destructive behaviour - it was just that the consequences were much greater that time. But I am convinced that it was that same strange, turbulent energy that had given us 'Forever Changes'so many years before. As is well known, Arthur played on the irony of the lyrics to 'The Red Telephone' for all it was worth during those triumphant return performances. I think that on the original recording the way the borrowed lyrics from Peter Weiss's 1963 play 'Marat/Sade' are adapted makes the end of that song Love's all time high point. The Marquis de Sade - now there's someone who was well and truly attended by demons - and he did a bit of a stretch too - 32 years according to Wikepedia! |
| kdion11 |
Posted - 23/08/2007 : 19:35:34
[quote]Originally posted by ed the bear
This conversation prompted me to read Hoskyns' account of the night the gun was fired. The way that it reads, this guy Doug Thomas was rummaging through the closet in Arthur's girlfriend's apartment, found the gun, had no idea it was real and loaded, brought it into the the living room and pulled the trigger. Now even though Mr. Thomas was from New Zealand, and possibly had no comprehension of the "gun culture" this all seems sort of improbable. You non-US folks can tell better than I, but if you found a gun in an American friend's closet, would you be that naive?
Of course it was bull**** for Arthur to be put away for such a long time, even if he pulled the trigger, but my guess is that Mr. Thomas was trying to cover for Arthur.
Which tells us what a fine, loyal friend Arthur had. Which also tells us something about him.
KD: Hey Ed, being from NZ, I can tell you that hand guns, ANY hand guns are illegal. This weapon could not have been Doug's, and it's pretty obvious (to the jury, judge and the district attorny at the trial) that they concurred. I think Arthur's long criminal history had everything to do with his hard core sentence - these were hardly "trumped up charges".
|
| kdion11 |
Posted - 23/08/2007 : 19:31:55
quote:
Originally posted by Arnstein
But what were the gun fired at? Something outside the house?
KD: Over the head of his next door neighbor apparently who
had the audacity to complain about Arthur's stereo being too
loud. Let's see the charges again shall we ?
# 1: Reckless discharge of a fire arm in a residential neighborhood
# 2: Attempted murder (? - not sure if he was charged with this)
# 3: Being a convicted felon and ex con, in possesion of an illegal fire arm
# 4: Being a convicted felon and ex con in possesion of armor piercing, illegal "dum dum" bullets.
Sounds like a big problem for Arthur, who I think at that point had already served at least 2 other prison terms in the '70's and or '80s. Can't really compare that to Crosby's run ins with the law.
Free the sentences ! |
| scully |
Posted - 23/08/2007 : 12:26:25
I believe it was fired into the air.
Not much point in speculating over this incident -- pretty clearly Arthur was given a 'punishment' sentence, probably because he pleaded not guilty, and refused to kow tow to the system.
David Crosby (a contemporary of Arthurs with a much lesser talent IMHO) was busted in TEXAS for heroin, crack, illegal possesion of a concealed weapon (a .45) and driving under the influence and he was sentenced to 'rehab'. His failure to complete that then lead him to serve all of nine months in jail...
Interesting to see how equally the US justice system applies. I can't see much difference in these cases, or these men, both talented musicians with substance problems and a taste for weapons, or maybe I'm missing something obvious....... |
|
|
