#Horst fascher

[tillthereweretangents]

Paul and Icke (part 3 of N)

Icke used to make gifts for the Beatles, and he included a trademark: Lipton's teabags (to remind them of home). We think this is quite sweet of him.

At Christmas in '62 Horst Fascher tried to palm them off as his own, but Paul recognised that the gifts were from Icke

With his brother Horst, I once had a special adventure. At Christmas of ’62 I had made The Beatles a special Christmas plate (as I had done the year before), where amongst other things I always distributed were bags of Liptons tea. That was a trademark - it was meant to be a quirky reminder of home. I also placed candles on the plates, and I wanted to bring all of this onto the stage, but Horst told me off and said, ‘you can’t do this with lit candles on stage - its much too dangerous…What were you thinking? Give them to me!’    So he dimmed the lighting in the room and took the coloured plates with the lit candles to the stage. The Beatles were already throwing tea bags and biscuits at each other, and Paul took the microphone and said, ‘Icke, you are so adorable’. Because of the teabags, they recognised the plates were my invention, even though Horst had taken them to the stage. The hardened rockers in the audience thought it was a bit feminine and misplaced that I should give such Christmas presents for them. But for me, every appearance The Beatles made was a present that was bigger than I ever could have given them back. Every time I listened to them, an intense feeling of happiness flowed through me . In them, I could forget everything around me. I never experienced such a total immersion in any other rock band who appeared at the Star Club. Perhaps there was something feminine about it, but I didn’t care.

Paul's comment of "Icke, you're so adorable" continues our theory that something may have been going on between Paul and Icke. Frankly, from what he says next, it sounds like the audience may have thought so too. I mean Paul did just call a boy adorable from the stage.

The most interesting thing is that Icke felt the need to mention it. This is his book, he could have just left that out. It seems like Icke, in his mid to late 80s now, is still trying to reconcile his sexuality, or at the very least his feelings for Paul.

Original German

Mit seinem Bruder Horst hatte ich noch ein spezielles Erlebnis. Weihnachten '62 habe ich für die Beatles, wie in den Jahren zuvor, zwei Weihnachtsteller gemacht, auf denen ich unter anderem einige Teebeutel von Lipton's Tea verteilt hatte. Die gehörten bei mir immer dazu, sozusagen als Markenzeichen. Gemeint waren sie als witzige Erinnerung an ihre Heimat. Außerdem hatte ich Kerzen auf die Teller gestellt und angezündet und wollte ihnen das Ganze jetzt auf die Bühne bringen. Da fing mich Horst Fascher ab und sagte: „Also das gibt's hier nicht mit den brennenden Kerzen, das ist viel zu gefährlich. Was hast du dir eigentlich dabei gedacht? Gib mal her." Anschließend dimmte er die Beleuchtung im Saal runter und brachte die Bunten Teller mit den brennenden Kerzen selber zur Bühne hoch. Die Beatles haben sich einen Spaß daraus gemacht, sich gegenseitig mit den Teebeuteln und den Keksen zu bewerfen. Und dann hat Paul das Mikro genommen und mit seinem englischen Akzent gesagt: „Icke, you are so liebenswirtig." An den Teebeuteln hatten sie erkannt, dass die Weihnachtsteller von mir kamen. Auf die beinharten Rocker im Publikum wirkte es immer etwas feminin und fast schon deplatziert, wenn ich solche Weihnachtsgeschenke machte. Für mich aber waren die Beatles mit ihren Auftritten ein Geschenk, das größer war, als alles, was ich ihnen jemals zurückgeben konnte. Jedes Mal, wenn ich sie hörte, durchströmte mich ein intensives Glücksgefühl, in dem ich alles um mich herum vergessen konnte. Ein so totales Aufgehen in der Musik erlebte ich nirgendwo sonst, auch nicht bei den anderen Rockbands, die im Star-Club auftraten. Vielleicht hatte das sogar etwas Feminines, aber das war mir egal.

[mage8]

This is bisexual John Lennon 101 and should be required reading

Hello, I'm the last anon you answered to. I'm sorry if I came out as defensive because it wasn't my intention. In fact I've always thought that John was bisexual until I started questioning everything. ( I'm a bisexual guy myself and I'm perfectly happy with the way I am ! ) It's just that I feel like Yoko would just say whatever she wants on John to suit her agenda. John's sexuality had always been an interesting topic and dropping something like that would gaib her publicity this is why I --

I question the authenticity of her claims. She could have lied about it just to attract attention… And I’d be disappointed because John was in fact my idol and he gave me the strength to come out as bi to my family. But there’s so many anecdotes about him being homophobic that it just makes me sad and this is why I hardly doubt that he was a bisexual man…As for the Cynthia quote I heard her say something like “ John was afraid of homosexuality just like everyone ) in a video on Youtube –

I am very conflicted because I’ve watched videos of John ( interviews etc ) and many comments said that he was very skilled at manipulating people and wasn’t as honest as he appeared to be, which is why I doubt. John had always been the rebellious type and I started thinking that he was using the bisexuality topic to shock and make people talk about it which is disappointing. Was he dropping hints that he was bi to piss off people and make publicity ? This is what I believe : (There is also -

Something he said to Alaister Taylor where he said that he was trying to spread the rumor that he was gay or bi just for fun and he told him that he would never shag a man because just the thought of it turned him off… Yet he also told him that he adored Brian so much that he would have done anything with him ( he contradict himself here. ) So yeah I didn’t want to be rude. I apologize. I think I need reassurance. Could you please analyse everything I said if u don’t mind please ? : (

-

Anon 2

At the very least all these years later isn’t it circumstantially suggested that John had very private gay encounters, and was uncomfortable making them public, yet wanted to hint at them so he could deal with this matter int he future? He was protecting his privacy and his ego, and perhaps wasn’t yet ready to reveal either his encounters or mixed feelings of bisexuality. His encounters have been protected by those with whom he was involved, people thameant a lot to him, no?

-

Anon 3

hey! by any chance, do you have knowledge of the quotes where john said “sex with girls felt like a performance after the first time” and “i was never sexually attracted to women before yoko”? i am SURE i’ve seen the first one somewhere on tumblr, though the second one is more of a quote of a quote so i’m not sure if it’s real or not dfkdjk thanks, anyway!

-

Anon 4

Hello! Is it true that John used to be very attracted to the drag scene in St Pauli ( I guess that was the town I read about ) and that basically the drag / gay scene made him feel comfortable and at home? Says a lot about him!

-

@tbhmarjj

I adore you, thank u for this blog and ur beautiful mind. i doubt johns bisexuality at times tbh considering he went to great lengths for publicity and he wanted to be an LGBT ally, be cool and outspoken and as he himself said it was trendy to be bi. but then again he was obsessed with Paul in so many ways and he was the embodiment of John’s ideal man. beautiful, talented, intellectual. I’ll be patiently awaiting ur posts exploring Paul’s views on johns sexuality.Thank u

-

Hello again, anon! 

I want to begin by thanking you for getting back to me after I answered your ask and for clarifying where you were coming from when you wrote it. It really is quite hard to fully get the tone of a written message, especially one that is so short that you have no context to draw from to get the emotional meaning behind it. It really appeared to me when I read it that the concern was not who was saying it (Yoko) but about what was being said (John was bisexual). I can now see that was not the case and I appreciate that you’ve made that clear. 

I also hope you don’t mind, but I’ve taken the opportunity to include in this answer all of the other asks I’ve been receiving regarding John’s sexuality. It’s clearly a topic of great interest in this community. So I’ll be attempting to address all the points raised here. Again, this is nothing definitive; only my personal readings of the situation as I find it at the moment.

Before I do answer, though, I’d just like everyone to take a deep breath and a step back. Let’s try to examine this topic a bit more objectively. 

I understand that sex is kind of major in our society. Our notion of identity is tightly bound to our classified sexuality and gender. Sexual relationships (or amorous relationships) are seen as the epitome of human connection and the ideal everyone should be striving for. And people fundamentally want to be loved and not alone, so it makes sense that figuring out who is a potential companion (and if that companion is interested back) is such a big deal.

But despite these layers of meaning and societal pressures, we should keep in mind what sex represents, essentially, from an evolutionary point of view. 

For social animals who derive pleasure from sexual stimulation, sexual intercourse is – like all the other kinds of affection – a way to build connections. 

If you want to find examples in nature, just look at our ape cousins, the bonobos. The also called pygmy chimpanzee lives in a matriarchal society where sexual behaviour plays an essential role in strengthening social bonds, lowering tension and keeping the peace. Bonobos don’t discriminate between gender or age (except between mothers copulating with their own adult sons, so as to prevent cross-breeding). It’s the true “free love” society; evolution took “make love, not war” and ran with it. 

Our own culture seems more similar to that of bonobos’ northern neighbours, the common chimp. Their patriarchy is more conservative regarding sexual intercourse, which is mainly used for reproduction purposes, and their power structure is based around intricate political games, where males form alliances and try to get public support in order to overthrow the ruling party.

I find it endlessly curious to look at these two species, whose physical separation by the Congo river made them diverge so starkly in their social organization, and compare them to the struggle between these same two natures that we find in our own society. 

All this to say that, from a simply biological point of view, I have to agree with John and Yoko when they say that everyone must be bisexual. If sexual intercourse as a social behaviour is, inherently, all about establishing bonds and connections, the extent to which those connections are “allowed” to be built depends entirely on the hierarchal structure that same society is trying to preserve. In other words, what is classified as morally right or wrong is more reflective of the rules in place to keep that society working as it is, than it is of what is naturally present as a drive. 

If your brain is primed to seek pleasure and sexual intercourse brings you pleasure independently of the partner’s gender, then the partner’s gender should be inconsequential.

But unlike bonobos, humans are kind of touchy about touching. So there are other levels of information influencing behaviour. The processes of socialization – of internalizing the norms and ideologies of society – and enculturation – by which people learn the dynamics of their surrounding culture and acquire values and norms appropriate or necessary in that culture and worldviews – are as determinant as the genetic factors influencing behaviour. In fact, this added education can be so effective in curbing your “primal instincts”, that one might forget they have them in the first place. 

Thus, the concepts of gender identity and sexual orientation are a constantly shifting construct based on the various interactions between your genetic makeup and social influences. 

I just think that, in order to have this discussion, it’s important to separate the various levels of it and be clear about which we are referring to.

There is the basic evolutionary drive to seek pleasure and form connections.

There is the social education about that same drive and how it is allowed to manifest itself.

And integrating all these different signals and information – various potentials which manifested as attraction – there finally is a behaviour, a choice.

And finally, there’s the external point of view of other members of society looking in and trying to discern other people’s drives and how they relate to their choices (that’s us now). The problem is, we often throw our own drives and choices into the mix, especially with regards to something as personally defining as sexual orientation. 

So we have to make very clear in our minds what is the end goal here. Why are we interested in discussing this topic? Are we looking to discern as much of the truth as we can get it, objectively trying to understand these human beings? Or are we trying to confirm our own projections on them? And please, don’t take me wrong. All these are valid reasons to be interested in a subject. Often how it resonates with us, so personally, is vitally important to reaching a greater understanding about ourselves and learning how to communicate that to others. 

But in the same way a piece of music can make you have a transformative emotional experience that the artist didn’t necessarily go through, it’s important to remember that our own inner-life might be affecting how we examine others. Better be mindful of what we project, lest we think are finally seeing inside another person when in fact we are only looking at our own reflection. (And honestly, I believe getting to truly know ourselves in this processes can be a hundred times more valuable than knowing the other. By learning to recognize ourselves we can better understand other people and vice-versa.) 

So if it is important to you that John is bisexual, my honest opinion is that all the information can be read in a way that confirms it. We’ll hardly ever know for sure, and based on what we do know, that can certainly be the takeaway. 

But if we want to objectively examine John’s sexuality, we shouldn’t bring in a confirmation bias. Meaning that we should be emotionally detached from the outcome, as long as it is as close to the truth as we can get. But this is only where I’m coming from, and I’m a bit of a scientist. It’s totally fair if you’re not in it for the same reasons. Though again, working under the assumption that you want to know my stance on it, let’s proceed.

Keep reading

[gardenwalrus]

BBC4 Documentary, Stuart Sutcliffe: the Lost Beatle (2008) - discussion of whether there was a homosexual nature to John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe's relationship, and allegations made in Pauline Sutcliffe's book The Beatles Shadow that Stuart's brain haemorrhage was possibly caused by a physical fight with John a year prior

[In order of first appearance - Astrid Kirchherr, Pauline Sutcliffe, Tony Sheridan, Alan Williams (the Beatles' first manager), Horst Fascher (friend of the Beatles and club manager)]

[muzaktomyears]

Only one happening – there is no other word for it – ever slowed the long procession of girls to our den of iniquity: it was ‘The Thing’, and it was George Harrison’s fault. One night, after some excessive drinking along with the rest of us, he was sick on the floor at the side of his bed. This was nothing terribly unusual after a skinful; it was typical of us all. What was different was that next morning he left the mess for the cleaning lady to deal with. She protested that it was not part of her daily duties and it could stay where it was. The trouble was, George decided it wasn’t his duty either and she stormed off in the direction of Herr Weissleder in a Teutonic rage. It wasn’t the first time she had complained about the untidy Beatles, whose sweaty socks, discarded clothing, bottles and other items usually littered the place. This fresh contribution from George was the last straw. In an effort to placate the old lady, Weissleder despatched Horst Fascher to our quarters with an order to George to remove the offending vomit himself. But George became really shirty. It wasn’t his job, it could stay where it was for all he cared, even though he had to climb over it to get into bed. None of this was really typical of George. He rarely involved himself in any sort of argument and was always much quieter than the rest of us in those formative days and, because he was the youngest Beatle, we all tended to look on him as the baby. We never let him forget, for instance, that he had been kicked out of Germany for being too young and taunted him with such gibes as “Still in nappies, weren’t you?” Even some of the fans treated him as a baby. German girls would shout Liebschen Kind! (lovely child) at him and he wouldn’t mind at all. He always wore a sly grin and had a twinkle in his eyes, perhaps because many of the birds wanted to mother him, which he let them do. Not that he was any kind of ‘softie’, despite his stature (only Stu had been smaller). He would have a go in a rumpus. And he had a streak of obstinacy which came to the fore now, as he categorically refused to clear up the mess at his bedside. So the pile of vomit remained. And it began to grow, and grow, mushrooming and taking on a life of its own. Cigarettes were crushed in it, bits of food fed to it, until it assumed the look of a hedgehog; we christened it The Thing. When members of other groups visited us in the flat they took to giving it the occasional drink. Its fame spread and people wanted to come and see it. For a time food and drink seemed to beautify The Thing and it blossomed like a miniature flower garden. It measured something like six inches in diameter. But its beauty was short-lived, and it began to grow hideous. “I’m frightened to sleep,” George remarked one night, “in case it eats me”. The Thing began to pong as well, but it was George’s baby and somehow we had grown to love it as a pet, despite its wretched origins. After its fame spread Horst arrived one morning to inspect it. He thought it was a disgusting sight: he was right, of course. He left, returning with a shovel; the end, we knew, was nigh. “Hey! Don’t do that! That’s our pet,” we chorused. Horst was not the sort of man to be put off by mere cries of affection for the squalid Thing. He scooped it up on his shovel and led the way with it out on to the Grosse Freiheit while we followed behind him, solemnly chanting the Dead March. The beloved Thing was given a swift burial in a street bin and, only after it had gone to its eternal reward did the cleaner reappear to try to make the flat look fit for human habitation once more. And in the end, it had been something of a minor victory for George: someone else had had to do the dirty work after all.

Beatle! The Pete Best Story, Pete Best and Patrick Doncaster (1985)

[ilovedig]

Little Richard did what to Ringo? Evidence PLEASE

Horst Fascher is a small man, with a white beard and a fishing cap which covers his bald head. He has the flat, caved-in nose of a featherweight boxer and inveterate street fighter – other than that, he could almost pass as the local department store Santa. Now in his Seventies, Horst writes books about the greatest time of his life, which happens to be more interesting than the greatest times of most people's lives. With tiny, delicate hands which must have thumped more than a few, he hands round a business card which features his face – cut out, like on a pantomime poster - plonked in the middle of a big yellow star, like the one that used to sit over the entrance to the Star-Club, when there was a Star-Club. "Horst Fascher Entertainment", it says: Horst is still in business. Having been around this block more often than anyone can count, he's still keen to make a career of it, and in all honesty you can't really blame him.

Horst tells the old stories beautifully, with pauses for memory and a sense of loss which doesn't quite dim the still-bright excitement, and they could all be true or fishy as the Fischmarkt; it hardly matters any more. How he caught Lennon in a transsexual club, or getting blowjobs behind the bar from Star-Club barmaid "Big" Bettina Derlien; how he had to drag Little Richard out of a room at the Hotel Pacific because he was trying to rape Ringo Starr ("he said he liked his big nose").

Horst says it never actually happened, but it's not like he was around every time Ringo and Little Richard were alone, I assume.

Even if he attempted it, and that's not any better.

God they were all so fucking nonchalant about things they really should have been chalant about.

That said, Horst was likely racist and homophobic, so it might be false or exaggerated or something, but at face value it's awful. And if it is false, Horst's accusation is awful. So either way, this story sucks.

For the record this has to be my least favorite story, well, it's tied for first with the dentist.

[wrence]

Stuart Sutcliffe was an important member of The Beatles. He helped come up with the name and was always the first to adopt a new clothes or hairstyle. He was also John’s closest friend. John and the others would be forced to endure an unexpected tragedy on April 10, 1962. In this episode, we’re talking about the circumstances and atmosphere surrounding the death of Stuart Sutcliffe.

(Larry notes: This covers events of three weeks ago. Sorry for the delay in postproduction. I took some time off in April. It's an hour long! Perfect to take with you on a hike, or something.)

[chaotichedonist]

The Beatles (w/ Pete Best) posed in Hamburg, Germany during their residency at The Star Club in May 1962

By Horst Fascher

[eppysboys]

When he had to leave Hamburg for the first time, Horst was very upset. Then, on our second visit, when we did three months at the Top Ten, he was there. He saw us every night, used to eat with us, drink with us, laugh and joke with us, and when we were leaving to go back to Liverpool for the first time that we were all leaving together, he was in tears. Here was this outgoing man who had the reputation of being hard and could handle himself, openly shedding tears over the fact that his boys were leaving Hamburg and he didn't know when he'd be seeing them again. Then there was the delight on his face when he was in a position to come to Liverpool and negotiate with Epstein to open the Star Club. And while he was there for a short spell we got drunk together and he said, 'I can't wait to see you in Hamburg.'

Pete Best on Horst Fascher, Mersey Beat

[ljblueteak]

Look what just arrived! I know I’m no longer fluent in German, but I guess I’ll see how much is left soon!

[ladyjaneasher-blog]

FASCHER: "My favourite was and is Paul McCartney. Because he was a nice guy and you could always count on him; he never had one too many if he still had to work or if it was time to go on and do the second set. The others were younger, George was very young... Sometimes he didn't know how much he could drink, or was allowed to, while John did it on purpose [...], he was the rebel, the swashbuckler, he was always looking for a quarrel." The nice guy McCartney was, in fact, so nice -- generous, in this case -- that years later he paid the costs for a cardiac surgery at a London hospital for one of Fascher's children when Fascher himself could not afford it.

Horst Fascher: Let The Good Times Roll, Deutschlandfunk Kultur

[marmalodi]

The Beatles circa December 1962 during their final residency at the Star-Club in Hamburg. (Photo by Sammlung Horst Fascher)

[renemartens]

Und plötzlich hatte Tommy das Hirn von Angie auf der Jacke

Noch bis Anfang Juli in der Arte-Mediathek: die dreiteilige historische Dokumentation „Die Paten von St. Pauli“ (Regie und Buch: Oliver Schwabe). Hier mein Text, den ich dazu für epd medien (Ausgabe 17/22) geschrieben habe. [Nachtrag, 16.2.24: Der Dreiteiler steht nunmehr wieder - bis Mitte Mai 2024 - in der der Arte-Mediathek]

„Schöne alte Unterwelt“, lautete 1998 die spöttische Überschrift eines „Spiegel“-Textes über Dieter Wedels mehrteiligem TV-Fiction-Film „Der König von St. Pauli“. Auch die reale alte Unterwelt auf dem Kiez scheint recht schön gewesen zu sein - jedenfalls sehen das viele der heute noch lebenden Protagonisten aus dem Rotlicht-Milieu der 1960er, 1970er und den 1980er Jahre so, die in Oliver Schwabes dreiteiliger Dokumentation „Die Paten von St. Pauli“ zum Wort kommen. Zum Beispiel der Zuhälter Klaus Barkowsky, der nicht nur berichtet, dass „wir alle dicke Autos hatten“, sondern auch schon mal erzählt, dass er Prostituierten in der Öffentlichkeit eine Ohrfeige verpasst habe („Das musste so sein“). Oder Fred Fascher, der Kellner im Star-Club war, in dem die Beatles 1962 zig Konzerte gaben. Er ist heute noch stolz darauf, Gäste „ausgeknockt“ zu haben, die zu wenig Getränke bestellten.

„Die Paten von St. Pauli“ sind jeweils einem Jahrzehnt gewidmet. Im ersten Teil geht es unter anderem um den besagten Star-Club, später um die Strukturen des Milieus, die Rivalitäten zwischen den Zuhälterbanden, das Wachsen der Gewaltbereitschaft, schließlich den zwischenzeitlichen Niedergang der Sexarbeitsbranche infolge Aids.

Zu den Expertinnen und Experten, auf die Schwab zurückgreift, gehört die frühere „Spiegel“-Redakteurin, die 1999 das Buch „Die Reeperbahn: Der Kampf um Hamburgs sündige Meile“ veröffentlichte. Als Journalistin weiß sie natürlich, wie man erzählen muss, nämlich am besten so, als wäre man nicht nur mittendrin, sondern dabei gewesen. Über die Ehefrau des Kiez-Unternehmers und Großbordell-Besitzers Willi Bartels weiß Barth zum Beispiel zu berichten, diese habe  „nachts im Bett den Namen für das Eros-Center erfunden“. Und über eine Schießerei, die den Zuhälter und Geldeintreiber und späteren TV-Schauspieler Thomas Born überlebte, aber zwei Menschen das Leben kostete, sagt sie: „Tommy Born erzählt, das Hirn von Angie hatte er plötzlich auf der Jacke.“

Es sind Geschichten, die auf dem Kiez so oft erzählt (und wohl, je nach Interessenlage, auch ausgeschmückt) worden sind, dass jeder, der Teil des Milieus ist oder es seit Jahren als Chronist beobachtet, so erzählen kann, als wäre sie oder er selbst dabei gewesen.

Bei einer anderen Anekdote (über den Konkurrenzkampf im Milieu in den späten 1960en Jahren) kann Barth ein Grinsen nur schwer unterdrücken: „Der Wiener Bär kriegte sieben Messerstiche in den Hintern verpasst und wurde dann an einer Mauer des Hafenkrankenhauses abgelegt.“ Die Art, wie Barth das erzählt, zeigt eben auch, dass dieses kriminelle Milieu eine besondere Faszination auf viele Menschen ausübt, die es sonst vermutlich eher nicht in Ordnung finden, wenn jemand sieben Messerstiche in den Hintern „verpasst“ bekommt. 

Einen Großteil der Dokumentation bestreiten maximal unsympathische Männer, die nicht unbedingt den Eindruck erwecken, dass sie in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten in selbstreflexiven Phasen ihr Frauenbild revidiert hätten. Horst Fascher, Bruder des brutalen Kellners Fred und einst Geschäftsführer des Star-Clubs, erzählt über eine Freundin: „Ich hab mich verliebt in sie und sie sich in mich, und so wurde ich auf einmal … ja, wie nennt man das? Zuhälter nennt man das heute.“ Um gleich darauf klar zu stellen, dass er eigentlich ja doch kein Zuhälter war, denn er „nahm kein Geld von ihr“. Vielmehr „beschenkte sie mich mit Ringen und Uhren und dergleichen“. Was daran stimmt, ist schwer zu sagen, aber es ist allemal aufschlussreich, dass der heute 86-jährige Fascher es für vorteilhaft hält, sich so im Fernsehen zu präsentieren. 

Während hier sehr oft Männer über Prostituierte reden, kommt nur einzige ehemalige Prostituierte zu Wort: Eine hier schlicht „Sunny“ genannte Frau, die im Winter 1984 mit Hilfe eines Zeugenschutzprogramm aus der Szenen aussteigt - nachdem ihr Lebensgefährte, der bereits erwähnte Thomas Born, ihr in die Schulter geschossen hat.

Regisseur Schwabe bekommt die Balance zwischen der weitgehenden Verklärung alter Zeiten durch die Protagonisten und kritischen Einordnungen seinerseits nicht immer hin. Der Dreiteiler wirkt zudem manchmal auch etwas behäbig, weil immer wieder Informationen wiederholt werden. Ein Pluspunkt ist aber die zurückhaltende Machart. Schwabe vertraut auf die Kraft der farbigen Erzählungen seiner Gesprächspartner. Nina Petris Sprecherin-Stimme ist angenehm nüchtern, Animationen und Zeichnungen, etwa von Gewaltszenen, sorgen eher für eine Distanz zum beschriebenen Geschehen.

Ein Highlight ist die von Carsten „Erobique“ Meyer komponierte Musik. Die an Library Music angelehnten Stücke greifen jeweils Sounds aus dem in der Dokumentation abgehandelten Jahrzehnten auf, also etwa Disco-Elemente im zweiten Teil und New Wave-Anklänge im dritten. Meyer, der auch für den Meilenstein-Soundtrack der Serie „Der Tatort-Reiniger“ verantwortlich zeichnete, stellt hier auf eher dezente Wese zeithistorische Bezüge her.

Die Musik von „Die Paten von St. Pauli“ ist integraler Bestandteil des filmischen Konzepts. Hätte Schwabe hier einschlägige Songs aus den 1960er, 1970er und 1980er Jahren eingesetzt, hätte das krachledern gewirkt - und die Dokumentation überhaupt nicht funktioniert.

[charlottesharlottes]

Photos displayed at the Indra MusikClub:

The Beatles perform at the Top Ten Club in April 1961. Horst Fascher (a former boxer and bar bouncer), who befriended The Beatles, sometimes sang with them.

[bluesman56]

Star Club by Tony Via Flickr: The Star-Club was a music club in Hamburg, Germany that opened on Friday 13 April 1962, and was initially operated by Manfred Weissleder and Horst Fascher. In the 1960s, many of the giants of rock music played at the club. The club closed on 31 December 1969 and the building it occupied was destroyed by a fire in 1987. The club achieved worldwide renown through the performances of The Beatles, who played there 13 April — 31 May, 1—14 November, and 18—31 December 1962. A performance or parts of several performances from the end of the latter stay was or were recorded on a home tape machine, and a remixed version was released in 1977 as Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962. The Beatles' first Hamburg Club performance was at the Indra Club (also on Große Freiheit) on 17 August 1960.

[ilovedig]

hello!!! i saw your post about ringo and little richard. do you have any sources about that situation? i want to know more.

thank you:)

I think it's from Horst's autobiography?

That's the only thing I've seen about it.

If anyone else knows more, feel free to add!

[wrence]

One of the earliest told stories of the signing of The Beatles to EMI’s Parlophone Records division in May of 1962 goes like this: While Brian Epstein was having the Decca audition tapes transferred to acetate for easier distribution to labels, the songs were heard by Sid Colman, who ran EMI’s Ardmore and Beechwood Publishing division. He was interested in obtaining the publishing rights to The Beatles’ original songs. And that’s where the story seems to split into different tellings.

Brian Epstein would relate that Colman took the recordings to George Martin, who liked them very much and would be willing to give them an audition. Martin remembered it differently. He said he “wasn’t knocked out at all.” So how did The Beatles eventually get signed? In this episode we talk about the fairy tale version and the version that is closer to what really happened.