Secret co-writer of "Chelsea Hotel"?

tomsakic · Post by **tomsakic** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:19 pm

Also, regarding LC's managers, this Machat's discovery in Chelsea "affair" didn't came as big surprise. Knowing not only for Kelley, but for the first manager who stole him copyrights for Suzanne and The Stranger Song (Leonard signed not knowing the true results, he was very young... and it seems he never learned = he trusted people to much and he still does, or did it til recently. So i am not buying this Cornelius bullshit as the actual truth... which is out there

and as usual, somewhere in between.)

Excellent notion about sainthood in LC's work, ~greg. But I think jurica's point wasn't mentioned to be reffered to Leonard at all.

Young dr. Freud · Post by **Young dr. Freud** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:22 pm

The greatest saints were all great sinners.
Augustine to mention just one.

Absolutely. The thing is though...you gotta repent. I don't think Leonard's done that....he just "wonder's" about it.

YdF

Kush · Post by **Kush** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:28 pm

I can note that Dylan always used traditional folk songs as musical patterns, from Harry Smith's Anthology of American Music and on, mostly not mentioning it in bookletsor credits (that's why some people attacked him for stealing), not mentioning the man who sent him a song on a tape in 1990s, to see it appear on next Dylan album.

Tom...if you think I'm gonna defend Dylan, fuhgeddaboudit.
Although I might consider it if he offered to move some of his diligently pursued millions to my bank account.

jurica · Post by **jurica** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:30 pm

Young dr. Freud wrote:Jurica...please tell me you're not buying into this St. Leonard nonsense. It's ridiculous. The man is flawed...deeply. Enjoy his music but don't get caught up in the adulation frenzy on this board.

buying what? i don't know anything about this subject. and from what i've read here, neither does any of the rest of you. we can only guess what happened, and i'm not going to judge either of the two on account of a guess.

maybe he did steal the song. so what? does that make a song in any way different?

Cohen is not a saint. if he were he'd write gospel, not Closing Time or Everybody Knows, and i wouldn't be interested in his work.

i guess that may be what Kush wanted to say, and i misinterpreted? why would i be interested in art that addresses the problems and feelings of a saint? i'm not one myself, and i don't think i can dig one's art.

i'd highly admire him, though.

jurica · Post by **jurica** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:45 pm

Tom Sakic wrote:not mentioning the man who sent him a song on a tape in 1990s, to see it appear on next Dylan album.

i don't care about Dylan's legal rights any more than Kush does, but this simply isn't true.

1. you cannot say 'to see it appear' since the songs had nothing to do one with the other in lyrical sense. only arguable part is if he stole a few melodic patterns. and listening to Dignity - melody is realy not it's strongest point.

2. http://www.dylanchords.com/faq.htm#dignity

3. when you are submitting your work to any big comic publisher (you'll know why i know this), they specificaly ask you not to do a story about any of their characters. that's because they had a lot of law suits - every little writter who couldn't brake into business found something simillar in the stories published by other authors. and it's HIGLY unlikely that they even read their works, just like it's highly unlikely that Dylan ever listened to a tape sent by one of the thousands of guys nobody ever heard of who did the same.

Young dr. Freud · Post by **Young dr. Freud** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:45 pm

Sorry Jurica...perhaps I misinterpreted your previous post where you said:

what i wish to comment is:

Kush wrote:
The super saintly saccharine sweetly soporific St. Leonard myth perpetrated on this website by Leonard Cohen "appreciators" is frankly boring as hell.

it's well known in sociology and political sciences that masses dislike perfect individuals (JFK gained more public backup after his first mistakes, for example), but i think that this standpoint is very wrong.

shouldn't we at least TRY not to be jealous of people who are 'perfect saints', and at least PRETEND to like tham for the fact that they are? i mean: should we crucify every saint that comes by just because he's not human enough for our tastes?

I thought from this you were on the St. Leonard train.

YdF

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:04 am

Silly boy, YdF ~ sometimes you can miss the most obvious of references

. Back to Professional Development training for you.

lizzytysh · Post by **lizzytysh** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:43 am

Well, just to clarify what I feel is obvious ~ I don't consider a saint or a Saint. I've listened to, heard, and understood his words. Not a saint

. However, as Greg has very succinctly summarized, how Leonard deals with his unsaintliness has a positive effect of its own, and causes people to feel an affinity with him. None of his listeners or readers are saints, either.

I like Leonard's honesty, as well. I've seen it in a wide variety of ways, and it lends creedence to my position with regard to this songwriting and copyright issue. It feels good to not consider someone a liar. It aligns well with my own approach to faith and trust. Trust and have faith until you're given reason not to....that can happen after a series of smaller betrayals, where one is forced to acknowledge that this is hopeless, or an egregious one. Then, regaining the trust becomes very difficult. I have seen no reason to distrust what Leonard says at this point in his life. Who knows how I might have felt during earlier times, when I wasn't privy to his responses to particular happenings in his life. That was then. This is now. My believing in him doesn't make him a saint/Saint in my eyes, however. I've considered the notion of 'profit,' but never saint/Saint ~ that's other people's labeling of my perceptions.

It's extremely easy for me to believe that the legal aspects of all this went unnoticed by him. That's not an uncommon occurrence in the music field, and performers lose thousands and millions as a result. If it were a matter of leaving off someone's name, there could have been [considered, although I doubt much actual] financial gain in that ~ a decision someone in a position other than Leonard's might make, on Leonard's 'behalf.'

Regarding BMI, I was planning to suggest what Greg and Tom have also addressed ~ Leonard clearly leaves business matters to others; and 'others' aren't always so reliable or honest. Still, Leonard's philosophical and caring self tends not to want to pursue legal avenues with people, particularly those considered 'friends.' Its being uncontested rings far more true with me.

YdF ~

Oh bull. He's very proud of it. In every concert...Leonard just had to rehash the melodramtic history of the song...so much for the fake "I really shouldn't have mentioned her name" garbage.

You might as well get a grip on this matter. The song is written. The cat's out of the bag. People want to hear the song. Leonard has no reason to dig a hole and bury it ~ it's not 'that' offensive regarding Janis, to begin with. Leonard's expressions of regret related to it are real. People remain interested in how it came to be, as well as how Leonard feels about it. It doesn't make his feelings fake, however.

You really have some vitriolic feelings toward Leonard. Did a former girlfriend or lover leave you for him? Are you looking for him to repent for having stolen her ~ and now this song has become the symbol? Your presence here seems primarily two-pronged ~ disparage contributors; disparage Leonard. Interesting. Do you see your former girlfriend or lover in every one, whom you see as 'adoring' Leonard?

It was great, Greg, to see your own, detailed thoughts related to your premises and things you've quoted

.

~ Lizzy

Tchocolatl · Post by **Tchocolatl** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:07 am

Kjelling wrote:Tchocolatl: In a 1994 radio interview with the BBC, Cohen said he regretted his indiscretion towards Janis Joplin. He may have mentioned it at other times as well.

You can read the whole interview at http://webheights.net/speakingcohen/bbctrans.htm.

Thanks Kjelling!

Great!

Well YdF, I'm always amazed to see how people without compassion are sceptical over people who are compassionate to others.

Laurie, now, I read this very interesting page on the net (the one I did post in the everything else corner about manipulative behaviors) and when I read this :

"a conscientious person might try until they're blue in the face to get a manipulator (or any other aggressive personality) to feel badly about a hurtful behavior, acknowledge responsibility, or admit wrongdoing, to absolutely no avail."

I did think about you right away as the conscientious person who tried nicely - at the beginning - to make Lz understand that she was acting like the US army, sometimes, and how it is difficult for others.

Now, Lz can not have made people go out of the board, I don't buy this, and I don't buy victim-kind-of-behavior that goes with this. She did lack of respect to you and me and we are still there, so... Some of her posts, maybe, may have done the job, harassment take energy out of a person (another interesting link not to take too seriously but metaphor speaks well : http://www.llewellynjournal.com/article/513 ) . Also when she teams with other people she is not responsible for the behaviors of these others who are playing the game with here and also she is not the only one to lack of respect to others here and try to control, she is just "the queen" at it, like you mentioned. But. If there is a contest for being the queen at it and some people did not win over Lz, well. Let the gorillas fight again. What can I say....

It is jungle out there.

As for me, I put all my force to be more human. Sorry.

*****

Leonard Cohen to be a Saint or not to be?

Perfect?

Wow. I am on the Leonard Cohen forum, the good Leonard Cohen?

You have to read his books and songs to know that he never tried to look perfect.

While many others would have die before admitting the 10% of what he admitted having thought, did, felt - or his characters, anyway he wrote this, no cute no perfect subject, ey!) in regard of no-perfection.

So what?

His great humility despite his genius? OK. His huge humanism? OK again.

The jewish education? OK again.

The years of rude monastery life? Two OKs.

This list is not finished.

LaurieAK · Post by **LaurieAK** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:04 am

Dear Tchoctl~

The link is quite interesting. I didn't read it verbatim, but got enough to catch the wave of what it was saying. I believe that most 'vampiric' action is done without such a label. It is a skill happened upon and utilized, but the 'sucker' is unaware of their draining tendencies. They tend to orbit only themselves. It creates a gravitational pull, and there is where the energy of others is depleted. I think it takes a good amount of not being very self-aware to achieve this phenomenon.

I don't subscribe to victimization under any circumstances, even the most heinous ones, so you are preaching to this choir. However, if the space you are occupying is being bombarded with unpleasantness, it is your choice to leave or fight the source. These circumstances give the impression of a forcing out by another, when it is a self preservative choice. And a stand of not buying what is being sold. Like that olde movie line: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more..." Or maybe more fitting is that other movie: "Soylent Green is people!!!" he cried, but no one cared. They'd gone too far to change their minds or care.

Well, really all I wanted to say, is Thanks for calling me "conscientious."

And I wanted to say that I think you have a very interesting mind, Tchoc.

Laurie

ForYourSmile · Post by **ForYourSmile** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:24 am

I think that Chelsea Hotel describes very well like the workers in song were living in that environment and that time. And, though Leonard was one of them he never felt fully comfortable. He was lacking something: "I never once heard you say, I need you, I don't need you / Racing the midnight train all alone, babe". The things were working this way. Maybe for this Jewish education (Tchoco), Cohen returns to expose this eternal conflict: pleasure & pain, sin & punishment.

Chelsea Hotel is a song of Cohen, though Ron will take a part in the music. (This story has not pleased to me for the Ron Cornelius's spiteful tone.)

The song is magnificent but they were exceeding these presentations with the elevator, Kris Kristoferson and so on. Janis was discreet.

YdF wrote:Oh bull. He's very proud of it. In every concert...Leonard just had to rehash the melodramtic history of the song...so much for the fake "I really shouldn't have mentioned her name" garbage.

I regret agreeing for once with the very reverend Freud.

Leonard is not a saint. He is a being of a great complexity who allows us to think and to write, also in this forum ... with freedom:

Kush wrote:The super saintly saccharine sweetly soporific St. Leonard myth perpetrated on this website by Leonard Cohen "appreciators" is frankly boring as hell.

-----------

Lizzy wrote:I've also seen the jealousy aspect with men in regard to Leonard. You may recall our having delved into that a bit here, a long time ago. I've seen it in my personal life, as well. Who wants to be [even implicitly] 'compared' ~ better to make them, somehow, 'less than,' and then you can feel better about yourself. [As though there were any real comparisons going on, anyway .]

Well! It is not the matter. There are neither jealousies nor possible comparisons. Your commentary seems to me sexist

And what about the women?

. This me sound to an argument of the most "official" part of the forum. I think that you support a strict line of defense. Well, it's ok, it seems to me as correct as any other respectful position.

Cheers!

Tchocolatl · Post by **Tchocolatl** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:20 pm

FYS, when I "said" Jewish education, I referred to this old culture which origine is lost in the nights of time. A vast subject, another one that I did not feel like to develop right now.

I could add also that he was influenced by being born in a Catholic environment (Montréal was created by 4 European people : English, Scottish, Irish, and French. While mostly English speaking cultures were leaded by business, the French were there only in the name of the Catholic Church, they have a mission to civilize the savages. Irish people were as fervent Catholic as French, if even more) so you see, the Catholic Chuch was ruling the life of everybody and every institution for the majority of the population. That counts for a young fellow who was awake as Cohen was (still is).

***

Laurie, dear,

Yes. You resumed well. I'll add that psychic vampirism (I like the metaphor very much) can also be an auto-vampirism, like for alcoolism for example. To try to make an alcoo stop drinking may lead to be more sick than the alco. This is this "danger" I want to stress to you. Take care. I do not meant to give up the respect that is due to you, just to be careful in the action you take.(*)

This said, exchanging energy is - I think - part of the life. It is "suckers" as everybody usually can recognized one when they encounters them, that suck.

Now. Children are great suckers of energy. Some adult have not really grown up emotionally speaking and/or they are not fully conscious. So let say that they are acting like children on the emotional level.

Some people let them do anything because it demands to much energy to take care of them. Some others break them or psychologically kill them because they don't know how to take care of them.

How will we behave in this regard? Some need "Though Love". OK. But the majority only need guidance from more emotionally grown up around them, and patience. So, yes, when a person is more conscious than another, the responsibility to lead in the wise way is on this person's shoulders. As I think that you are more conscious then Lz, Laurie, well, this is why I ask you : act accordingly.

This said, what "accordingly" is I let to you to decide, dear.

P.S.

*) And I add that psychic vampirism can also be done out of a will act. Brrr....

But I don't think there is any of this kind here. Hopefully.

~greg · Post by **~greg** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:40 pm

I apologize to everyone for not having read anything here carefully.

(I only realized just now that Kjelling's from Don, and Jakko's from Leonard, are recent quotes.)

Young dr. Freud wrote:
At what moment did he decide he'd co-written the song?

Probably about the time Leonard told the band members it was co-written.

YdF

That's exactly my point.

When it was finished, Leonard told everyone in our outfit
– "ya know, that's the first song I've co-written
– and I'm glad it was with Ron" – that's a direct quote from Leonard
– then later, the dollar signs got in his eyes and he lost sight of honesty,

I'll bet anything that having co-written it was the farthest thing
from Don's imagination before Leonard said that.
Leonard saying it is what put it into Don's mind.
Where it grew and grew.
Until it was finally no longer just the non-legalese, spur of the moment,
off-the-cuff, gentle, kind, encouraging word, of exactly the sort
that Leonard is famous for giving out (too) freely. I know of fans who have been
inspired by quite comparable simple kind words from him.
But most of the time they find the right perspective.

In this case, "dollar signs got in" someone's eyes.

I don't have a kid, and I don't write songs, but if I did,
and if the kid was at the piano pounding on it while I was at it
working out a song, I'm sure I'd tell everyone later that the kid
had co-written it.

LaurieAK · Post by **LaurieAK** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:14 pm

tchoc wrote:

Some people let them do anything because it demands to much energy to take care of them.

This is where the 'walk away' aspect comes in. One quickly recognizes "futility." Many, from what I have heard have walked away. A sense of finishing what you started comes into play. Also the sense of right and wrong. But then again, the 'people' think soylent green is fine and dandy, so there is a conundrum.

Yes, I am totally aware of all the things you mention. My attitude shifted in this quest to one of knowing it would accomplish nothing. So I have been amusing myself by poking at the numb one. Quite bad behavior, really, for a few chuckles. Of this I am fully aware and have been all along. I don't justify it, but will say, it pales in comparison to what the non-aware entity has done and is doing with that politician's mask and her steel toed boots.

The level of cruelty kept escalating during that melt down. If you want to feel awful to be human being, you should read that section of the Poetry thread. When it came down to personally and viciously attacking a personal friend, in public, for me that became unforgivable behavior. All there is with a person who has no boundaries or real sense of self, like she displayed over and over again, is a Next Time. Everything in between is damage control, with Control being the key word.

adieu,
Laurie

Young dr. Freud · Post by **Young dr. Freud** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:04 am

Greg,

The man's name is Ron. And Ron got paid what would have been almost a year's average salary in the Seventies for one chord change? And Leonard didn't know about it? His manager kept it all from him? No way.

YdF