LARRY: Today is, what, May the 22nd, and Pam and I are talking and, now you want to know the reason why I’m taping this? Because, there won’t be any confusion about who said what.
LARRY: Today is, what, May the 22nd, and Pam and I are talking and, now you want to know the reason why I’m taping this? Because, there won’t be any confusion about who said what.
Larry Norman kept every single missive, letter, handwritten note, scribbling and confession that his friends sent to him over the past fifty years. Poring over Larry’s immense archives of correspondence with Randy has been simultaneously revelatory, eye-opening, disconcerting, and clarifying, often within a single letter.
In addition to all the letters from Randy to Larry, the archival filing cabinets also contain all of Randy’s correspondence with Sarah Stonehill during the years they were married, letters written during and after their divorce, and all of the legal documents and divorce papers that ended Randy and Sarah’s marriage, including the true reasons why the marriage ended.
As an example of how extensive the archives are, I’ve included here part of the very first letter that Randy Stonehill ever wrote to Larry Norman. Scribbled on the back of an air-sickness bag on his flight home from his initial visit to Larry’s Los Angeles bungalow in 1969, here are the ramblings of a young Randy Stonehill trying to contain the newly found zeal that is coursing through his teenage head… It’s not strictly germane to the purpose of this web site, but I’ve included it because I think it will be of interest to fans of Larry and Randy, and also illustrate the extent of the Solid Rock archives. Click for JPEG.
Where does one begin when attempting to write about Randy Stonehill and his behavior over the years?
A complete report on Randy’s letters and actions over the years is beyond the scope of this website, but many of these documents will be scanned and posted here over the next couple of months. Some are not very flattering to Mr. Stonehill, but then, Randy speaks plainly in the Fallen Angel movie about the importance of making the truth known. In one part of the movie Randy Stonehill says “I respect him enough to actually tell his truth.” In this website I will be actually telling the truth about Randy Stonehill through his own letters and statements backed up with documentation rather than empty words.
The Fallen Angel movie implies that Randy Stonehill’s wife Sarah had an affair with Larry.
This concept of Larry having an affair with Randy’s wife is not only implied, it is also believed by people who’ve seen the movie. In a review of Fallen Angel, the Orange County Weekly newspaper wrote that in the movie “Stonehill alleges Norman screwed him out of songwriting royalties. Oh, yeah, and he and just about everyone at Solid Rock not named Larry Norman allege he was screwing Stonehill’s wife, an indiscretion compounded by the fact that Norman was still married to Newman (Pam), while Stonehill was out on tour.”
The truth of the story is vastly different than what is implied. Larry and Sarah were not having an affair. In fact, during their separation Sarah pleaded with Randy to stay together and expressed hurt that Randy had already become entangled in relationships with several other women. Randy married one of the women mentioned, Sandi Warner, just a few weeks after Sarah and Randy’s divorce was finalized. Here is a timeline of Randy and Sarah’s marriage:
May, 1980 – Sarah, now separated from Randy, writes him a letter in which she professes her continuing love for him and points out that if Randy had really loved her he would have tried to salvage their marriage instead of entering into extramarital relationships with other women. She says that if Randy loved her he would have…
“dressed up for me instead of for Debbie B… you would have kissed me instead of (L. M. – name obscured) or Sandy. You would have had a crush on me instead of (D.P – name obscured)” Click here for a PDF or JPEG excerpt from this letter. The entire letter won’t be shown here because of privacy issues that would be embarrassing to innocent third parties.
SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 –An Interlocutory Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage is filed: Click here for PDF or JPEG. Just weeks after Randy and Sarah’s divorce is final, Randy marries his girlfriend Sandi. Larry turns down an invitation to their wedding and instead writes Randy a letter expressing his disappointment that Randy would leave Sarah and marry another woman. This event triggers the beginning of the end of the friendship between Randy Stonehill and Larry Norman. The incident is referred to in a letter Larry wrote to Randy years later. Click for PDF or JPEG.
March 25, 1981 – Soon after their divorce, Randy writes a letter to Sarah in which he apologizes for marrying his new wife Sandi so quickly after he and Sarah were divorced. He states “I am also sorry that my re-marriage so quickly after our divorce was painful to you. It was certainly not intended as a slap in the face to you and I’m sorry if it looked like I could just waltz from one life to another so easily.”
In this same letter, Randy goes on to state that he believed that his remarriage was the right thing to do and that it wasn’t a rash act, even though it must have looked that way to everyone. He also says that he is very happy in his new marriage.
Randy continues, “I also truly hope that you will be able to know this same happiness with someone the Lord brings to you. You certainly deserve it.”
Click here for PDF of this very telling letter.
So here you have it…
The Fallen Angel movie implies that Randy’s wife Sarah ran off with Larry Norman. But in a letter from 1981, a few months after his divorce, Randy apologizes to Sarah for hastily re-marrying another woman, and then he goes on to express his hope that Sarah would one day find happiness with someone, as she certainly deserves it. Randy underscores this same attitude when he recounts this event in Fallen Angel: “my divorce was going to be final, on paper, she had said goodbye to me, I thought, maybe….they’ll end up getting together… wouldn’t it just be nice if SOMEBODY was happy?!?”
April 29, 1982 –Larry and Sarah marry after a brief whirlwind romance. Both of them have been stunned and shaken by the activities of their previous spouses and find solace in the company of each other. Almost immediately, rumors begin to circulate that Larry has “stolen” Randy Stonehill’s wife. Over the next few years, when Larry would arrive in various cities and be asked by local promoters how he could justify marrying Randy’s ex-wife, Larry simply replied “Why don’t you ask Randy?”
October 28, 1982 – After six months of hearing accusations around the world that Larry had an affair with Sarah while she and Randy were married, Larry and Sarah contacted Randy and Sandi Stonehill and confronted them about the rumors. Sandi wrote a reply to Sarah in which she stated that she and Randy had also heard the same “silly gossip and rumors” and that she thought that people must be coming to their own conclusions since Larry and Randy no longer worked together and that Larry and Sarah’s relationship must be the reason why. Sandi goes on to call this a totally unfair assessment by people who merely “want to gossip and talk.” Click here for PDF or JPEG.
It’s also interesting that if you look closely at Sandi Stonehill’s reply you can see where the next page is slightly visible through the paper. Through it you can read where Sandi writes “As Randy said ‘gossip and rumors are evil and we shouldn’t give them any of our time or energy.'”
Perhaps someone can ask Randy point blank if Larry and Sarah had an affair the next time he appears live on stage for a “Q & A session” at a showing of this film. In fact, I have a whole list of questions for Stonehill and Di Sabatino. If you can attend a showing, please email me on the feedback page and I’ll send you a list of questions to ask them just in case I can’t get all of mine answered at the “premier” in Nashville.
UPDATE: March 21, 2010 – Randy Stonehill announced on his Facebook page that he was divorcing Sandi, his wife of thirty years. Sandi posted on her Facebook page that she felt “blindsided once again” by Randy not informing her that he was going to publicly announce the divorce in such a way. Sandi, to her great credit, has engaged me in conversation even knowing that I am a long time friend of Larry Norman. Some of the other participants in Fallen Angel stopped communicating with me as soon as they found out that I am friends with the Normans.
These are but a few of the letters and messages that will be posted here over the next few months as time allows.
Why in the world would Randy Stonehill appear in a movie that casts false innuendo and tries to destroy the legacy of a brother in Christ who is no longer around to defend himself? I think Randy should make a public statement admitting what he has done. When I tried to contact him through his manager, Ray Ware, my personal correspondence was forwarded to David Di Sabatino instead.
The common perception of Randy is that he was a young artist who naively signed a contract with Larry that was “unfair and one-sided.” In the movie Randy tells a sob story about Larry and how he got Randy to sign over his publishing. In reality, Randy was not a naive artist. He went over his contracts with a fine-toothed comb and made notes questioning various clauses and contractual points. Here is an example of one such contract from the mid 1970s, with Randy’s notes for alterations to be made in the final draft: Click for PDF or JPEG.
At some point in their career, almost every artist wishes they hadn’t signed away their publishing. This is usually when they are economically stable with a steady income and at a stage where they wouldn’t need to assign their copyrights to a music publisher in return for help with their career. Randy is no exception. In the early 80s he decided he wanted Larry to give him his publishing back. Larry wasn’t convinced. The reason Larry was skeptical is best explained in a letter written by Larry to Randy in November of 1998. It’s a lengthy (11 page) letter that covers a lot of the problems in Larry and Randy’s relationship over the years. The matter of publishing is discussed on pages 3 and 4.
Portions of the letter have been blacked out, largely to protect the innocent, and because some of the “anecdotes” concerning Randy described within aren’t suitable for this web site.
Randy surmises in the movie that eventually Larry handed over all of Randy’s publishing, and reunited with him in concert after 22 years because Larry was lonely and tired of the friction between them. The truth is that Larry was tired of hearing from promoters and others around the world that Randy was still telling stories about him after two decades. So Larry decided to give Randy his publishing on the condition that Randy would stop making disparaging statements about him. This stipulation was written into the contract which Randy agreed to and quickly signed.
One of the most amusing parts of the Fallen Angel film occurs when Randy discusses Larry’s appearance onstage with him at Cornerstone 2001. Randy implies that it was some sort of publicity stunt on Larry’s part to help his own image and career. It’s difficult to not laugh at this scene in the movie where Randy thinks back ponderously on this event. The truth is that Larry didn’t need any publicity to aid his “waning career” and Randy knows it. Larry was one of the top draw headliners on the main stage of the festival on Saturday night, while Randy was relegated to performing in a small tent opening for the Sweet Comfort Band on the previous Thursday. Click for PDF or JPEG.
This, by the way, is a recurring and ridiculous conceit in the Fallen Angel film… that Larry’s career was over after 1980. In fact, he continued to be a top draw headliner at festivals and concert halls around the world until his death in 2008. This is a fact that I will explore further on the MISC. RUMOURS page of this web site…
I’ve barely scratched the surface of the Solid Rock archives, and I’ll be posting new information pertaining to the Fallen Angel movie as I uncover it. If you wish to be notified of any updates to this web site please send an email to: email@example.com
Some of David Di Sabatino’s associates have been complaining publicly that there is no way for them to respond to this website, even though there has been all along! Anyway, to make things easier for those who wish to comment, a FAILED ANGLE FACEBOOK PAGE has been created for anyone and everyone to leave their thoughts about this web site. Unlike Di Sabatino’s Fallen Angel Facebook page, there will be no censoring or deleting of comments.
HOWEVER, foul language and four letter words will not be tolerated, so don’t include any, please.
A Parody by Allen Flemming
of David Di Sabatino’s Film
Fallen Angel: The Outlaw Larry Norman, a Bible Story
When you stop to think about it, it’s very easy to dismantle someone’s legacy using the method David Di Sabatino employed in crafting “Fallen Angel: The Outlaw Larry Norman.” If I were a struggling playwright in the first century who had decided to destroy the legacy of the recently ascended Jesus of Nazareth, I could do it simply by using the Di Sabatino method (with apologies to Albert Goldman). A documentarian could easily do this with Abraham Lincoln or Mother Theresa or Bono or Lonnie Frisbee or Francis Schaeffer or your neighbor or you. But I have chosen Jesus because most players in Fallen Angel claim to believe that Jesus is the sinless Son of God. (Of course neither Larry Norman or anyone else comes near the stature of Jesus. I knew Larry. In my upcoming biography Rebel Poet I will reveal him warts and all.) Imagine now that you lived during the time of Jesus, heard Him speak a few times, maybe bought some scrolls about Him, but were not part of His inner circle. I have come to your town to put on a play…
Buffoon Theatre and the Ignoble Players present:
Fallen Angel: The Outlaw Jesus Christ.
A Bible story. By Ovid of Bologna
(As this scroll title is unrolled the chorus sings:)
Some say He was an outlaw, that He roamed across the land,
With a band of unschooled ruffians and few young fishermen.
No one knew just where He came from, or exactly what He’d done,
But they said it must be something bad that kept Him on the run.
A chorus of actors who supposedly knew Jesus appears on stage and one after another the actors step forward to recite their lines:
“And there was this rabbi, not very good looking, but a real mountain presence, and He spoke with authority.”
“In Galilee, Jesus was totally popular for years but Galilee was way too small for Him. The world hasn’t heard of Jesus but they need to because He has something to say. He was trying to wake up the young rich people and the old Pharisees in the Temple.”
“He was a virtuoso I think at writing a sermon, and as a magician. And He was certainly a virtuoso when He climbed the mount and started preaching.”
“It was as if Jesus was walking right into The Kingdom of God and said to everyone else ‘Follow Me’.”
“Jesus was like King David in Goliath’s body.”
“Yeah. This sounds like the Jesus I’ve heard about.”, you say to yourself. “Maybe the title Fallen Angel is meant to be ironic or something.” Then, with your defenses down, you are flooded with alternate accounts about Jesus by people most of whom you have never heard of but who claim to have been close to Him.
“Just when you were really starting to love Him, Jesus would go beyond pushing the envelope. Yeah. I love Jesus but . . . He hangs out with tax collectors and prostitutes. Yeah. I love Jesus but He wastes community money that could have gone to feed the poor.”
“I’ve heard He used the money to wash His feet in perfume!” “Which is hypocritical of Him after telling the rich young ruler to give all his money to the poor.”
“Most of His sayings I just couldn’t parse.”
NARRATOR: The more popular Jesus got, the more difficult He became.
“At the beginning He came across as the Prince of Peace; with miracles of wine and bread and fish but when He got really big it was all ‘take up a sword, pluck out your eyes and chop off your hands. And go to hell.’ ”
“He also said, and this is a direct quote from the so called Prince of Peace, ‘Don’t think I came to bring peace to the world. No. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.’ “ (Matt10:34)
“I never heard anyone talk more about hell than Jesus. And what was that psychotic rage in the Temple all about?!?”
“Yeah I heard His mom was delusional too. Explained her baby out of wedlock by saying God made her pregnant.”
“And Jesus, when He wasn’t criticizing the other rabbis or cursing fig trees or talking about hell or teaching us to hate our parents, would just wander off into the desert, sometimes for months!”
“Plus, Jesus started to believe His own hype. He claimed to be The Messiah! The One Way to heaven. But He was from Nazareth! No prophets come from Nazareth! Just check the Scrolls!”
“If someone told me Jesus really had not died on the cross but was living in a cave in Qumran I wouldn’t be surprised.”
NARRATOR: These inconsistencies foreshadowed what was about to transpire.
“Why did the demons always seem to know Jesus’ name?”
“He spent way too much time with Mary. When she was washing his feet, I was like ‘this is SO out of line.’ ”
”And I said, ‘You know something. I bet Jesus is at Mary’s house right now.’ And I said ‘I’m gonna sneak over there and have a look.’ And there was Jesus’ donkey tied up in her driveway.”
”And I said, ‘You know Jesus; He’ll just say His donkey was left there by someone else or something.’ After I peeped in the windows I said to myself, ‘I’m gonna go knock on that door and see if He’s there.’ For me, this was my moment of reckoning. If I had invested everything I believe in, I wanted to know what’s going on. I knocked on the door. I could hear someone doing the dishes. Finally, the door just opened and there was Jesus in the hall. ‘Jesus, do you think it’s a good idea that you’re here? Your best friend is in the tomb, You’re here in his house with Mary sitting at your feet.’ “
“For sure, and what was He REALLY doing with that Samaritan chick?”
“Jesus sometimes seemed delusional…destroying the Temple… ‘greater than Moses’… Son of God?… Ha! A bit of a megalomaniac if you ask me. I mean, who did this dude think He was?”
“Well, if He said God was His own Father then He was saying that He was equal to God. Just like Satan tried to do!”
“And I never met anyone more concerned about their image. After his sermons, Jesus would rush over to His disciples and ask, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ ” (Matt 16:15)
“For me some of the most, you know, things I sort of had questions about was; What was going on when another Gospel came out, and it was like, let’s tell the same plot over and over and over again. A kind of mythologizing was starting to happen where it’s not okay to just have ONE Gospel. There had to be several Gospels to seem like it was written by Aeschylus or Sophocles or something.”
”His followers were as mythologizing as Jesus Himself was.”
NARRATOR: Jesus befriends and begins to disciple a young man anxious to get into the business. The Disciple was one of the most famous and pivotal people in Jesus’ life.
“And Jesus basically said, come follow me and why don’t you just take over the coin purse? Then He offered me eternal life and let me into His inner circle, and because of Him, I just knew I was going to be famous. But, I will never forgive Him for this money matter. I could have sold that harlot’s perfume He had His feet washed with for a lot of shekels. I mean, I still had love for Jesus, but if the Sanhedrin wanted help… well, I was gonna get what was due me one way or another.”
“The most stunning thing in my recollection was to see how Jesus, right in the middle of the Temple services, turned on the pigeon and dove salesman. He started like placing blame on the pigeon man, calling the poor guy names and knocking his table over. I thought, man, something’s really wrong here. I thought, what’s going on? This man is not who He says He is. He’s not who He shows the world. It really damaged my respect for Him and my own perception of Him as a Person.”
“We left everything to join up with Jesus. He promised us mansions and rewards and positions of power. Well, we did not get any of these things. I believe, and I think Peter would agree, when we decided to follow Jesus it was the end of our fishing career.”
“Why would Jesus do this to us? Promise us all these great things if we signed up with Him and then not follow through? I started to believe His critics were right, He had to have been some sort of vengeful devil.”
NARRATOR: The difficulties between Jesus and his followers were intensified by problems in their personal lives:
“I think that Jesus thought Martha had been unfaithful and so He started to hang out more with Mary.”
“Jesus just started talking about Martha’s faults to the point of dissing her for doing the dishes while at the same time publishing everybody else’s faults by writing in the sand, or shouting from the roof tops. ‘Martha is a busy body . . . Caesar is a fox. . . . Rabbis are whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones.’ And He never had a kind word to say about that lovely prophetess from Thyatira, Jezebel.”
“I’m sorry, but I got a little annoyed with Jesus when image overtook reality. Even when He taught us religious practices, it was always coached in presenting a false image to the masses. He’d say ‘When you go without food, comb your hair and wash your face so that others will not know that you are fasting, don’t wear shoes, don’t use a walking stick, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.’ And when He healed the blind, He made them promise not to tell anyone who had healed them. And remember when Peter guessed that Jesus is the Messiah?! Of course Jesus said, ‘Don’t tell anyone!’.
NARRATOR: The only ones who could see right away who Jesus was, were the fallen angels. Why? Because, like Jesus, the devil and his demons are deceivers. Because Jesus is in league with the Fallen Angel! (Matt 12:24)
“Then there were all the publicity stunts. There goes Jesus posing with the lepers again. There goes Jesus talking to the lame again. There goes Jesus doing stunts with coins and fish again.”
“On another occasion, on the Mount of Olives, Jesus said some crazy things about how we should drink His blood, and nearly the whole crowd walked away shaking their heads!”
NARRATOR: Jesus also began to tell the story that He was the King of the Jews when evidence to the contrary was obvious.
“When Pilate said to the people ‘Here is your king. . . Do you want me to crucify your king?’ The chief priests, answered, ‘The only king we have is Caesar! Don’t call Jesus the King of the Jews!’ ”
“Oh and Jesus Christ was not the first guy to ever die by crucifixion but His followers acted like Jesus had invented the cross!”
“Jesus really seemed to have problems keeping friends. In the end nearly all of His followers and even His Father had abandoned Him.”
“Jesus seemed to grow paranoid too! Right in the middle of the Passover Seder Jesus started saying that one of us would betray Him. I think it was shocking to everybody in the upper room. Jesus broke up our family. There’s no other way to put it. It exploded that night. It was done. Everyone scattered.”
NARRATOR: Jesus tried to frame Himself as the victim; asking questions like “Did you have to come with swords and clubs to capture Me, as though I was an Outlaw?”
The people answered Him by taking a bat and hitting Him over the head before they led Him out to be crucified. (Matt 27:30)
“Now, some of you are probably thinking that this all flies in the face of what you might have read about Jesus in the Gospel of John and Letters of Peter and James.
But how can we really trust their views? All those writers of the New Testament were Jesus’ friends and James was Jesus’ brother. So no matter what He did, those Christ crazies will keep defending Him to the end. I don’t want to hear any more of their Jesus-speak. So whom do you believe? The people closest to Jesus who loved him to the end or those who had him crucified?
This is the one page of this web site that will not be confined to addressing the untruths in the Fallen Angel movie.
In fact, once Di Sabatino’s movie has run its short course, the name of this entire web site will most likely change to something else because David Di Sabatino is ultimately merely a footnote in the life of Larry Norman.
There have been many strange stories about Larry Norman over the years and this page will be devoted to tracking down the sources of these rumours and either setting the record straight or confirming the stories. I’ve already uncovered quite a bit of interesting documentation, including a letter from United Airlines to Larry Norman that addresses and confirms Larry’s “airplane accident” story which many people claim never happened.
I’ll scan the letter as soon as I can and get it posted here, along with a lot of other interesting stuff.
If you wish to be notified of any updates to this web site, please go to the FEEDBACK page.
What really happened at Solid Rock? Why did the label dissolve? Why did this once mighty presence in the Christian Music Industry shut its doors? Whose job was terminated? What exactly went down?
We might never know if Larry Norman hadn’t had the foresight to have a tape recorder there in the meeting room.
I need to find a studio to transfer the cassette tapes of the meeting into a digital format for posting here. Until then, If you wish to be notified of any updates to this web site, please go to the FEEDBACK page.
Much of the first 10 minutes or so of David Di Sabatino’s movie tries to make a case that Larry wasn’t a Christian while in the band People!, got kicked out of the band for being extremely difficult to work with, and began a “lifelong habit of spinning a story, usually framing himself as the victim, overcoming adversity, and taking the high road.”
To try and strengthen Di Sabatino’s assertions, the movie questions Larry’s claim that he quit the band over religious differences and Capitol Records’ decision to call the People album “I Love You.” Di Sabatino quotes a member of People! saying that Larry was very “secretive” about his religious beliefs, while another says he is not sure how committed Larry was as a Christian. This is all part of an attempt to frame Larry as someone who told untruths from the very beginning of his career.
Here’s what really happened: After four of the other five members of People had become Scientologists and told Larry that he had to become one too or leave the band, Larry did become difficult. Some of his band-mates pressured Larry into going to a Scientology meeting where he was simultaneously amused and shocked by the rites of this religion. One of the rituals Larry later described to his parents was one where he held two tin cans attached by wires (like a child’s toy “telephone”) and was instructed to “relate an emotional experience.”
Larry wanted nothing to do with Scientology. He stopped hanging around with the other members in their off time, and he especially didn’t like the direction they were now trying to take the group. The majority of the band wanted to spread the message of Scientology, and Larry was opposed to it. The local Scientology HQ apparently labeled Larry a “Suppressive Person” because he didn’t follow his band-mates into the organization, and soon allegedly began harrassing him frequently by phone — apparently a typical Scientology ploy. Eventually, according to Norman, the band’s manager Mikel Hunter (aka Captain Mikey) somehow convinced the powers that be at Scientology to stop harrassing Larry.
“Captain Mikey and I talked yesterday (he phoned to say that the Scientology center in San Francisco has decided I’m not suppressive at all. That’s a relief; no more midnight phone calls.)
In the midst of Larry’s increasing unease with the band’s new direction, Captain Mikey placated Larry by agreeing that Capitol would title the album “We Need a Lot More Jesus…”
But when the album artwork and title was changed at the last minute by the record company to “I Love You,” a band meeting was held in which Larry announced that he wanted to quit the band because of the influences of Scientology. The band’s founders called him delusional and preempted Larry’s resignation by firing him on the spot. The band then immersed themselves completely in Scientology and continued on without Larry.
Although Larry was no longer in People, the band still used several of his songs on their next record. On the album’s cover, two of the members of People are pictured wearing huge Scientology medallions around their necks. Here are photos of the Scientology symbol, the next People album cover and a closeup of the medallions worn by the band members.
To this day, two of the ex-People members are still heavily involved in Scientology: Al Ribisi and Geoff Levin (who appears in the movie and calls Larry “delusional.”) Click on their names for links to their Scientology records.
Geoff Levin’s attitude toward Larry seems to have changed since he wrote Larry a letter in March of 1996. “I never felt good about how I treated you for the several months before you left the group.” This is in stark contrast with Levin’s position in the movie. Read excerpts from the letter here: PDF or JPEG
People! drummer Denny Fridkin talked about Larry’s Christianity in a 2007 interview with Crossrhythms Magazine. Here’s an excerpt from the interview:
“By the time the ‘I Love You’ album was released and the band undertook its first major tour of the USA in the summer of 1968 Larry Norman had left People!. I asked Denny why Larry left. “I’m sure you’ve got many interpretations and you have gotten or will get from the horse’s mouth. As I perceived it at the time the whole band had gotten interested in Scientology, sort of culty thing. . . I was into that Ron L Hubbard stuff for a short time, a couple of years. Albert the keyboard player was the first one to get exposed to it and he came to rehearsal one day and was just all excited about it. But Larry was just not at all interested in it of course.”
“I asked Denny whether Larry’s strong Christian faith caused tensions in People!. “Not outwardly at first. But we were playing in Monterey, California with a makeshift stage and during the dragon killing, during the epic where he would use a microphone stand and mimic killing a dragon… The stage had separated from Larry and he fell and damaged his finger. In fact a piece of bone flew off his finger and blood was spurting out all over the place. He finished the song with his finger a bleeding mess. Shortly after that is when he announced that he was leaving the band. My understanding is God told him that he was to be doing something else. Larry said, ‘I don’t know what that is but I’m following the Lord.'”
This, incidentally, is the same broken finger that Larry began pointing skyward as a sacrifice to The Lord during his solo concerts. When audience members would applaud his songs, Larry would lift his finger and point at The Heavens to The One that really deserved their enthusiasm. Audiences soon began pointing skyward as well. This was the origin of the famous “One Way” symbol. Read more about it on the MISC. RUMORS page of this web site.
After seeing Di Sabatino’s film at its premiere in San Jose, Gene Mason, the co-vocalist in People, set the record straight in an email dated April 13, 2009:
“While I was in high school and I believe in my junior year, ~1963-64, I started playing music with Larry and we rehearsed at his parents’ house. We spent time rehearsing but we also spent time together just as friends. During that period Larry told me that he was a Christian. The subject came up in the context of musical subject matter. Larry wanted to keep the music wholesome. Then when we became roommates just before we joined People, he told me about Jesus and what He could mean to me in my life. Shortly after, he and I joined People together as a lead-singing duo. During that period, he mentioned to me that he was conflicted about some of the subject matter in the music that the band played. He loved the band and enjoyed performing very much, but I was always worried that he would leave the band due to this conflict.
After People, in 1974, I joined his back-up band and during the course of that portion of our relationship, he brought me to the Lord. He was on fire for the Lord then as he was since the day I met him. Some of the other band members in People were Jewish or non-believers and Larry felt that it was best to keep his religion at a low profile. Therefore I’m not surprised that some of the other band members were not aware of his faith.
The Fallen Angel film implied that Larry didn’t find Jesus until he saw a potential monetary advantage to it. My experience was that Larry cared about money only to the extent that he could give it away. He was extremely generous with money and never spent it on the trappings of success.” – Gene Mason
Other friends of Larry’s from the early to mid 1960s have chimed in recently. Here’s a letter from Coleen Morris which references Larry’s faith before 1965. Click for PDF file of her recent email.
Coleen’s brother, Brad Harper, Professor of Theology at Multnomah University also added his recollections of Larry as a teenager in this letter posted here in PDF format.
Several other untruths in the movie are predicated on the idea that Larry wasn’t a Christian until 1969.
Here is a letter Larry wrote to his Grandmother in 1965. In it he says “… next year I’ll be entering college, and I’ll be exposed to a lot of radical ideas and people who I don’t agree with. I just hope that my faith in God and myself will carry me through, unwarped by corrupting influences.” Click for a PDF or JPEG of the letter.
Finally Larry and his mother told me nearly identical stories about his decision to follow Jesus at the age of five.
Fallen Angel portrays Pam Norman, Larry’s first wife, as a helpless victim in her marriage to the “difficult” Larry and implies that Larry left her for Sarah Stonehill with whom Larry was supposedly having an adulterous affair. Pam’s onscreen appearance is quite a performance by a professional actress (also here). However, the truth is that it was not Larry but Pam who had an adulterous affair and when Larry found out he had her served with divorce papers, as the following documents reveal.
February 20, 1980 – With divorce papers already served on her three months previously, Pam writes to Larry “I’m sorry Larry. I know I have sinned and hurt you too. I wish the words I’m sorry would make all the pain go away and everything alright. It use [sic] to, but it doesn’t now.” “Oh Larry, I’ve only wanted to be loved by you and your lady at your side. I know I went my own direction and other guys entered the scene but it was out of a tremendous need to be loved.” – click for PDF.
March 12, 1980 – Pam writes to Larry “The separation has been good. I’ve done a lot of thinking and see how wrong I was. I’m sorry for hurting you. I can’t re-do the past. I made mistakes, many. I sinned and now I am reaping the seeds sown.” – click for PDF.
May 22, 1980 – A cassette recording of a conversation between Larry and Pam is made with Pam’s spoken acknowledgment that the conversation was being recorded. In this recording Larry addresses the issue of thousands of dollars in royalty checks and other checks to Larry that Pam has embezzled and stolen. A disappointed Larry expresses his inability to trust Pam after years of deceit and selfishness. Pam says she is sorry and then admits that shemight do it again if Larry’s royalty checks were to come into her possession, and she agrees that she’s an opportunist.
In these audio recordings, Larry expresses that he still has hope that Pam will change and that he is hoping that their marriage can still work out, even if at the last minute. Pam says nothing. Larry brings up Pam’s lies about drug use.
Here are excerpts from the lengthy tape recordings, along with transcripts. If there are any legitimate, reputable journalists from Christian publications that wish to hear the entire recording, please contact me at the email address listed on the FEEDBACK page of this site.
Excerpt 1 – Larry explains to Pam why he is taping their conversation.
Excerpt 4 – Pam confesses to illegally embezzling $5,000 worth of Larry’s royalty checks ($13,000 in 2009 dollars adjusted for inflation.)
Excerpt 5 – Pam wants to know how Larry found out about her misappropriation and theft.
Excerpt 6 – Pam talks about the problems Larry was having with Phillip Mangano and others at Solid Rock, her acknowlegement that Solid Rock is destroyed, and how she understands how Larry would feel betrayed and used. Larry still has hope that Pam would repent and expresses his dismay when he discovered that shestill wasn’t showing any signs of changing even after a six month separation.
Excerpt 7 – Pam says she felt that she was drawing closer to God and that God provided her with the royalty checks for her to steal.
Excerpt 8 – Pam says she might steal checks again if given the opportunity, and Larry says he doesn’t want to prosecute her because he doesn’t believe in going to court.
Excerpt 9 – Larry expresses that he is watching Pam closely and offers her a last minute chance at reconciliation Pam says nothing.
Excerpt 10 – Larry equates Pam’s lies about stealing the checks to her lies about using drugs while they were married.
Excerpt 11 – Larry quotes from the Bible, Mark 10:9 regarding the sanctity of a Godly marriage instead of a false marriage as Pam seems to have subscribed to.
June 23, 1980 – A request and declaration for final judgment of Dissolution of Marriage between Larry and Pam is entered into the Superior Court of Los Angeles. The divorce isn’t finalized until late August of 1980. – click for PDF. In the meantime, Pam has been dating other men and has decided that she is in love with Joey Newman, a musician with the Osmond family singers. (See August 8 entry below.)
July 2, 1980 – Pamela signs a document paying Larry $900 as partial restitution to Larry for her illegally endorsing Larry’s name on royalty checks worth thousands of dollars. – click for PDF.
August 8, 1980 – In a file copy of a letter Larry sent to Pam just days before their divorce is final, Larry expresses his disappointment that even the seriousness of a separation still hasn’t slowed down Pam’s involvement with other men, particularly Joey Newman, musician with the Osmonds. – click for PDF.
August 14, 1980 – Larry receives an overdue letter from Os Guinness, noted Christian author, philosopher, and social critic. Guinness has spoken with Larry and Pam separately about their crumbling marriage and in this letter writes about Pam’s infidelities and her pursuing another relationship while still married to Larry.Guinness writes, “You were both very candid about the final break coming through Pam’s adultery… this is what concerned me most… Pam, you need close Christian brothers and sisters to whom you are accountable for your faithfulness to Larry in every situation, whether he knows about it or not.” – click for PDF (7MB) of the entire 6 page letter.
August 4, 1981 – A year after Larry and Pam’s divorce is finalized, Pam writes a lengthy letter to a friend where she confesses that her affair with another man while Larry was away on tour is what prompted Larry to have divorce papers served. Pam uses loneliness (Larry was off on a tour) as an excuse for her behavior. The letter was forwarded to Larry by the original recipient. – click for PDF.
Pam also talked about her past drug use and jet set lifestyle before she met Larry, in the September, 1972 issue of Decision Magazine. – click for PDF.
In one of Pam’s first interview segments in the film she again revises history when she recalls how she and Larry first met. Pam claims that Larry, after jumping off stage after a concert, walked up to her and said “I have to see you tonight” and then kissed her in front of the crowd. Pam then claims that the next day Larry looked her in the eye and said “God told me you were going to be my wife.” This is just one example of Pam distorting what actually took place. Here’s what really occurred:
Fall of 1971 – Pam makes a “comic book” where she recounts her seeing Larry onstage at a beach concert in California at which point “something inside her started saying “You’re going to marry him someday! He’s the one.” – click for PDF.
Now in 2009 the story Pam tells in the movie is that Larry walked up to her and said that God had told him that they would marry.
When I heard d.d. was calling the movie, ‘The Fallen Angel…The Rebel Larry Norman’, I was so upset. I fought him to the point of tears so many times.
I fought him and kept asking him ‘why’ but, he was just being his mean typical proud self……..
He told my friend that he planned to destroy Larry Norman with this movie. I thought there was something definitely very evil with this man and decided to remove myself and all the pictures I let him use of Larry and I. Again he refused and told me he was the producer and he was making the movie his way.
I’ve learned so much, how a producer can splice and change things around to make someone look good or bad.
So, on the movie’s opening night when David handed me the microphone………
David D.D. was not a happy camper with what I shared on stage.
So many people thanked me and asked why David didn’t end the movie with the story of forgiveness??? I could only agree with them and told them to go ask David.? ..it was his movie! Well, apparently all night long he was asked that question.
I had a rather threatening voice-mail waiting for me when I got home, from D.D.
Between You and David Di Sabatino
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
June 30 at 11:35pm
If anyone feels comfortable, I am trying to get ahold of DVD copies of FRISBEE and FALLEN ANGEL. I am reluctant to give $ to the person who made them, but I want to see them for myself. PM me if you can, thanks!
LOL… you’re funny…
July 1 at 1:03pm
Your quite the comedian yourself… al that nonsense about Norman having signed artists just so he can waylay them. Except it’s not really funny. And has been thoroughly responded to.
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 1 at 1:12pm
And where are you getting your information from, friend?
Just making it up?
July 1 at 1:41pm
Read my response- it’s on the Candaian Christianity website you posted- Sources cited. Plus a longer response was offered by another poster.
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 1 at 1:42pm
Like I said, you know not of what you speak. You are some crazed fan who can’t deal with the fact that the guy on your pedestal was a liar.
Deal with it, man. He was all that and more. And God still used him.
July 1 at 4:13pm
Then next time, correctly state the name of Ron Salsbury’s old band (“Ron Salsbury & JC Power Outlet”) and point out the fact that the music on the Patano-Salsbury album was different, which was most likely the reason for why it wasn’t well received, and admit that LN did in fact continue to put out new music past 2000, and other details you left out, and I’ll believe you’re not some opportunistic hack filmmaker who actually did his research and isn’t talking out his rear with only half the facts in a Michael Mooresque attempt to tell one side of the story. Your call. Be fair or stop your cry-babying over those who point out your own shortcomings (who btw, happen to include non Larry Norman fans.)
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 1 at 7:13pm
Wah… poor Larry… wah… waaaaaahhhh….
July 1 at 7:16pm
David: Grow up! :>
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 1 at 7:29pm
You are going around spouting off about stuff you have absolutely no clue about…and you think you know.
You are clueless.
You have no idea about whom you are speaking about. None.
July 1 at 7:45pm
Really? Gosh I guess I must not be able to read album covers. Coulda sworn I saw that Ron Salsbury’s name was on all the JCPO’s albums and on the one he did as a duet with Pantano. Must have been an illusion! And the point about the music being different? I must have been stoned when I heard the album I guess? Except that the public including record reviewers all thought the same thing. I must have imagined those less than favorable comments by C-Stone & Campus Life. Oh, and those CD’s that came out in the 90’s: Stranded In Babylon, Tourniquet, Copper Wires, A Moment In Time – almost all with new material- I guess they really didn’t exist? (Except that when it’s corn-venient to the point you want to make, you mentioned Tourniquet in your discussion with Donnie Gosset!) Furthermore, why do you care to even bother writing me? Or Donnie? Or anyone else who disagrees with you? Threatened? Have we hit too close to home?
And btw, next time you want to talk about Church leaders and charges of their shorcomings, interview them yourself. The fact that Chuck Smith and John Wimber didn’t get to say anything in your Frisbee film shows you have NO journalistic integrtiy whatever. You don’t even know the meaning of the word.
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 1 at 7:57pm
Why do I bother writing you?
Because you are writing scads and scads of nonsensical emails every time that an article comes out like you think it matters to anyone. And it amuses me to no end to see that you think what you write matters.
Hitting a nerve? Kevin…are you really under the delusion that I or anyone else reads what you write?
You must be to write all that you do. Nobody cares, man. I delete it without reading it most times, especially if it is long. I suspect most people do the same.
Get a grip, man… a grip.
July 1 at 8:01pm
OF course you do! You have no rebuttal to the information I’ve included and don’t wish your followers to wise up and see this charade for what it is. So you delete things without reply. Obviously YOU do care – you are wasting your time talking to this “guy whom nobody cares what he says” 😉
Keep talking. I love the way you are diggging a hole for yourself :>
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 1 at 10:14pm
Well, on one hand… that is very true… there is no rebuttal for someone that has no idea what they’re talking about.
And you seem to think that because I am answering you this means, what?… that you are getting through to me… that I am bothered by what you are doing?
You’re the man, Kevin…takes some interesting rationalization to believe that.
A grip… a grip… for God’s sake… get one.
July 2 at 1:58pm
Say it with me David: the Correct name of the band was RON SALISBURY AND JC POWER OUTLET. Since you obviously know so much about what you are talking about 😉
July 2 at 1:59pm
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 2 at 2:12pm
You might want to check the spelling of his last name.
You don’t even have that correct.
July 2 at 2:22pm
I DID CHECK IT- look at the correction I gave above ^^^ plus I had his name correct in post #6 & 9. It was the auto correct on my Mac that thinks Salisbury is the correct spelling! Nice try, though 😉
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 2 at 3:38pm
So, you think that my entire story about Larry changing the band’s name from JC Power Outlet to Pantano-Salsbury is uprooted because you found out what… that they were actually Ron Salsbury and JC Power Outlet?
What sense does this make?
You seem to believe that Larry was acting aboveboard.
If there is a successful band, and they already are well established… why change the name? Wouldn’t it have made some prudent sense to continue the band as JC Power Outlet? so that they can capitalize on their former success?
Instead, he changes the name.
And he does this because they were popular. This way, it can look to people like yourself that think that he was acting above reproach like he was helping them. But to the people that were really there and understood that everything that Larry did had double and triple meanings… they began to see that he wasn’t exactly looking out for the band’s best interest.
You need to think about these things some more.
July 2 at 4:54pm
No, I know exactly what your logic is, and what it is you are trying to say.
Reread my comments- I posted them on Canadian Christianity- and one other person actually offered more info than I did- not so much about JCPO but about a lot of other stuff you said in that article. Yes, I pointed out that I know who Pantano-Salsbury was due to Ron’s name being in the band (seeing the album reviewed in Cornerstone magazine as a teenager back in the day.) But there was a LOT MORE that I referred to. I pointed out that according to One-way.org, RS&JCPO was disbanded before going to Solid Rock. If they didn’t have all the band members on the “Hit the Switch” album, then why call themselves by the same name? If the music is obviously aimed at a different audience, why call themselves JC Power Outlet? And I pointed out that the reviews weren’t that great- Cornerstone mislabeled it “Christian Disco.” Campus Life magazine was kinda ho-hum about it in their review- can’t remember if Steven Lawhead was still writing record reviews for the magazine by this time or not. I think he was.
Many of us checked out anything that said “Larry Norman Presents” on it and that was released on the Solid Rock label. IF he wanted to deep six them, then he should have had Myrrh or someone else release it and not have his name on the front! I in fact borrowed the copy of P/S I heard from someone else and although it had it’s moments, decided to pass on it.
What does this tell you?
1) I knew who Pantano-Salsbury was so changing the name didn’t totally hide who they were.
2) I was motivated to check them out based on their association with Norman/Solid Rock –which helped them get attention.
3) Their record wasn’t that great to begin with, so I didn’t buy it.
I don’t care if he had emblazoned Ron Salsbury & JC Power outlet in big gold letters on the front of the LP! I wasn’t into it since I didn’t think it was worth what- $8 we were paying for albums by then? DeGarmo & Key was of a similar vein to Pantano-Salsbury and they blew their doors off! Those 1st two albums I liked and I bought.
I know exactly what you are saying, that ain’t all that hard to figure out. You think Larry change the name to derail their success since obviously the fans of RS&JCPO wouldn’t be as likely to know who they were.
I am saying I think it came down to only one thing:
The album kinda sucked!
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 2 at 5:15pm
If you think that album sucked, who was the guy that oversaw it…and who was the guy that put it out?
If it sucked so bad…and he was standing there… doesn’t that lead you to some sort of conclusion that perhaps what I am saying has some merit?
Too, just because you knew who Salsbury and Pantano did, didn’t mean that others did.
JC Power Outlet was a very popular band in the early Jesus music era. Why not capitalize on their former glories? Ron was the leader of the band, so just because two members did not come with them, so what? He and John were the main guys. And it was those two that Larry curried to come to Solid Rock.
Too, this is the testimony of the guys in some of those bands, that Larry derailed careers.
I think you should respect their testimonies a little bit more… and maybe rely less on whether what you thought as a singular fan has any relevance to this discussion.
You don’t know. That is why you rely on those that do. And since I am the only one of us that has talked with people who were there, what is it that you are going on about?
Like I said… who is listening to you? Do you think the fact that I am answering you here is for any other reason than for you to stop being such an ignoramus. Friend… how can you speak about things you know nothing about?
July 2 at 7:59pm
OK maybe “sucked” is a little to harsh. I think Solid Rock gave Pantano-Salsbury the most polished album of their careers, but the writing was a bit weak- and could have focused more on up tempo tunes. And you know as well as I do that there were several publications- CCM, Cornerstone that would have talked it up as THE album we should all listen to if it was good enough. A producer and label can only do so much, and if you are saying LN was responsible for why it wasn’t a great album, then maybe he should have told them “sorry guys, this thing ain’t hittin’ the streets until you get with it” -???
Then you would have said he was a baddy-baddy for not releasing the album at all!
As it was, it made about as much sense for them to call themselves RS& JCPO as it would be for Paul McCartney to call a band he formed with his wife “The Beatles!”
Different music- different styles- different band members- different intended audience. Therefore it makes sense to use a different name.
And you know- that’s your opinion and this is mine. You got the interviews and I didn’t- but that hardly makes you above the propensity to skew things a certain way, or we should just believe the media every time they show a documentary on something as gospel just because “we weren’t there.” Most people think it’s showing good judgement to squint at the things we are being shown on TV or film.
Besides- it appears that some individuals- are telling a different story than the one you are relating. Denny Fridkin of People! for example. Interview he gave on the link I posted- sounds like night and day from what you related. Somethings fishy here.!
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 2 at 10:14pm
And you know- that’s your opinion and this is mine. You got the interviews and I didn’t- but that hardly makes you above the propensity to skew things a certain way,
Let’s stop it right there… if the people that were there are saying these things, what is your deal that you wouldn’t believe them.
friend… give it a rest. i didn’t make this up. i am just relaying what these people said.
unless you were there or have information from someone that was… what are you going on about
as for Denny, what are you talking about? the editor of the piece in Canadian Christianity made the mistake of labeling the guy I spoke with who “never liked Larry” as Denny when he should have said it was another guy.
Denny emailed me. I emailed the editor. the editor made the change and apologized.
Simple as that.
And yet here again you are going off like a lunatic about something you know nothing about.
July 3 at 3:13pm
How about you cease and desist as well from your mis-caricature of Larry Norman fans who disagree with you? I don’t think it’s fair AT ALL for you to continually insist that we don’t see a single flaw in the man. As an example, I think most of us who have taken the time to look into it think Daniel is “probably” his son. It’s no big secret he was divorced and remarried and to whom. We know as well that he dragged his butt on releases & CD reissues by both himself and other artists. I just go by what Ed McTaggart told me when i saw him on the Alarma! tour back in the day: “Larry is just too busy and to slow.” I also have talked to promoters who worked with him and other bands who shared the stage with him. I heard some stories about some rather puzzling rudeness. My point is – and I think I can speak for all of us Larry fans- we know as well that sometimes it’s the people who are most pissed off at us that can be the most jaded, and not always fair. And we also know that a man is not the sum total of his faults. And there’s ALWAYS more than 1 valid way of looking at things.
As an example- I stayed at Jesus People in Chicago in 1979 and apparently Rez Band had just previously done a concert with Larry. Some of the JPUSA residents didn’t seem to think much of him, and talked mostly about his jokes and stage antics- they didn’t think those were becoming of a Christian musician, I guess. Upon reflection, I’d have to say what I was told about is just down to personal opinion and your own judgment of how far humor should go. I heard “He’s up there shakin’ & dancin’ like Elvis Presley.” I think he was just too radical for them! IMHO, it all depends on who’s telling the story. As an another example: the difference between Robbie and Denny of People! – and how they recalled Larry.
Ironically enough- one of the things I always questioned- his supposed influence and connection with secular artists -you yourself validated (the Pete Townsend and U2 thing.) I have heard other validations as well from other sources about artists who liked his music – obviously Frank Black and Dizzy Reed are good examples.
I remember reading on the larrynorman.com website that he had gone to Greenbelt one year and they got their undies in a bunch over him openly talking about Jesus from the stage. I went “huh???” Then I heard from 2 sources- a friend who lives in Europe (and promoted concerts that LN was a part of) and another friend who has been to Greenbelt and heard everyone talking about that very event.
Point is, I didn’t buy his version of events until I heard corroboration. That’s hardly someone who can’t handle him having flaws, is it?
Anyhoo- I don’t think it’s fair of you to ask me to stop offering alternate interpretations of events such as the Pantano-Salsbury thing anymore than I have any say in what you put in your movies. But I think it’s fair to say that I’ll try and offer my alternate opinions on why things happened and do my own footwork in talking to some of the people involved- I’m considering to do that -in a less strident and “lunatic” (as you call it) way. I’ll just say it’s my own damn opinion, fwiw. But I really, REALLY think it’s also fair for us to ask you to stop tagging some of us who disagree with you with such a broad brush. That isn’t going to make ANY of us listen to you, and we are part of the “public” you would like to take notice of your work.
I’m sure you know of the story of Mike Warnke – how C-stone brought him down and then JPUSA who published Cornerstone Magazine got in hot water themselves. The “exposer” got exposed themselves. I dunno. Makes me wanna season my words with some grace so’s I don’t have to eat them afterwards.
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 3 at 4:53pm
i don’t have any problem with people disagreeing with me. i am a little beyond that i hope.
i don’t think that when his fans come and say to me, “Well, he wasn’t so bad” or “there are always two sides to every story” or “well, that’s good ole Larry for you”… that they really grasp the reality of this story.
you have every right to offer opinion, but that opinion should be a lot closer to reality before you should get to offer it. and I don’t think you are as close as you think you are. you are still wanting to make it sound like some of the things that he did were innocuous or just him being a jerk, when what they really were were a longstanding cycle of really despicable behavior that bordered on evil. so much so that you have to wonder whether he even understood or had any connection with the very things he was singing about.
to me, having a kid out of wedlock is really not that big a deal. but totally neglecting him? and then, (as we just recently found out) that he wrote it into his will that while Michael got 50% of Larry’s estate, this illegitimate child was earmarked as having been given only 1%… and that was in the case that he proved paternity.
this is pretty contemptible behavior. and it reveals that this man was not living out the things that he said he was.
for you to just cover over that as if it is no big deal…that is a problem. it is then that i do and will say that his fans are rubes. because they are faced with this evil, and they are intent on calling it something other than what it is. and that bugs me.
i also think that you don’t really understand what went on at Solid Rock with the behind the scenes stuff. larry was never aboveboard, and he told story after story about his time there that just was not true. when the fans, again, tell me that they are taking larry seriously for the things that he said when there is all this evidence and testimony pointing to the fact that he was a pathological liar…then I also have a problem with those people. because it says to me they are not really listening to things carefully. they are wanting to somehow salvage larry in some way… see something good in him…find alternative ways of explaining… and there really isn’t any alternative way of explaining it.
this wasn’t a good man. not even in the slightest.
i talked with the people that knew him. you were a fan, and so was i… but when i started listening to the people who had the unfortunate reality to deal with larry, it was a terrible thing to listen to that stuff.
so when you start nitpicking about Pantano-Salsbury or the Denny thing (which, by the way, I noticed that you didn’t comment on… funny how we stop talking about those things once we get exposed for being a loudmouth doofus) or a hundred other little things… you are missing the point, again. You missed it while he was here, seeing through his charade… and now, you are continuing to try to salvage a guy who anyone in their right mind can see was an absolute horror show.
so, yeah, go ahead… do your own research… but listen to when people tell you he was a bastard. listen closely to those voices and stop yelling at them for telling the truth.
I will tell you this again. You do NOT know the first thing about Larry Norman. And trust me, if those people do confide in you, you are going to hear some horrible things. LISTEN. STOP TALKING.
July 6 at 5:37pm
David- that’ the thing that so “endearing” about you- this thing:
“the Denny thing (which, by the way, I noticed that you didn’t comment on… funny how we stop talking about those things once we get exposed for being a loudmouth doofus)”
-this is just your attempt at relegating your opposition to dunce cap territory so you can feel justified in ignoring some very important -and I think legitimate- things people are bringing up.
Correction: you DO have a problem with those who disagree with you. According to you, none of us could possibly have a point, or know what we are talking about! No one is right about all of this but you!
I gotta admit- for a gadfly whom nobody listens to as you say I am, you sure seem to be very interested in shutting me up! Why? Are you not confident that you’ve done a good job & that in time you will be vindicated? Or are you saying “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?”
Can I point out something very obvious? Larry isn’t here to respond to anything you’ve leveled at him. He doesn’t even get the courtesy Mike Warnke or JPUSA had of being told of their sin to their faces. The only one who’s around for us to take issue with this, and get to the bottom of whether not any wrong was done is YOU. We’re pointing things out and questioning you because you are here! The other stuff is in God’s hands now and he’s the only one I think that should be leveling judgments against a solitary soul that he owns!
And you still have yet to deal with the fact that more than just us poor naive Larry Norman fans have serious questions about you and your motives and methods, and that was resoundingly clear on Phoenix Preacher!
Allow me to quote from your own very words as was cited by OC Weekly:
“‘Larry, your career is in the toilet. You are playing concerts to 100 diehard fans in your own back yard. Let me tell your story in such a way as to rehabilitate you. You are going to have to admit to some stuff . . . but do it, take your lumps, and people will respond favorably.’”
You were going to rehabilitate this man in the public eye? A man you would have me believe is Adolf Norman??? How is that being responsible? And you expect me to believe that you are just a simple honest filmmaker reporting the news? You even ADMIT that documentary making is all about telling the side of the story to produce the effect you want to achieve!
I have no legitimate way of knowing if you really were notified by Denny, or if you saw you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar regarding things that myself and others were bringing up, and thus moved to cover up your tracks. Might I point that I wasn’t the one who brought up the point about Denny Fridkin at all? It was another respondent on Canadian Christianity. Might I also point out that his testimony contradicts two claims of yours: that it wasn’t known that Larry was a Christian by other members of People!, and that he was “kicked out” of the band. In fact, Denny verified that Scientology was the source of the differences that led to them parting ways. Now of course, you will say other band members disagree, but that simply illustrates the point that you don’t want us reminding you of: there are always 2 sides to each story!
And you have the nerve to tell me to stop talking & start listening?
As a side note, have you considered Scientology’s reputation as far as they way they treat dissenters? Google the words “Scientology character assassination” sometime. Can you tell me with a straight face you know for a fact that those in People! who tell an alternate account from Larry aren’t similarly motivated?
Furthermore, I have to question some of the terminology you use in describing things important to the case you want to make: “JC Power Outlet was big”, you tell me. Reality check: NONE of this stuff was anything more than cult status, and was anywhere close to being Michael Jackson mega-platinum success. (I doubt Larry has ever seen anything close to a Gold Record except for possibly People!’s one-hit single. So let’s just take your scenario at face value for the sake of argument: Pantano & Salsbury were part of this BIG band called JC Power Outlet and unwittingly got signed to the Evil Kingdom of Solid Rock under the grip of the Dark Lord of Christian Rock, Larry Norman. So after one album which was very polished compared to their past out put, and showed some great potential, albeit not a particularly great recording, Pantano & Salsbury are FINISHED, never to be heard from again, playing right into the web of Larry’s godless schemes!
If they were so BIG and the potential was there, why couldn’t they move over to another label? Why not reunite as Ron Salsbury and JC Power Outlet themselves and get back in the saddle? ONE bad album deep sixed an entire career? A career that was otherwise on it’s way up with only the sky as the limit, as you seem to be implying?
Worse is they way you seem to think that your view is the obvious, only possible conclusion, you don’t even seem to admit that most people would come to the opposite conclusion about Pantano-Salsbury based on the most readily obvious thing: we friggin’ didn’t like the damn thing that much!
And as a side note to all of this, I got the same Yahoo group email you did re the 1% thing in the will for Daniel and all I gotta say is: Jesus told an enquirer who asked him to settle an inheritance dispute with his brother “Who appointed me to be a judge or arbiter over you?” I guess I have no taste whatsoever for the way all of this has seemed to focus on money- which is evident in Andrew’s motivations no matter WHAT he tires to say to the contrary. On the other hand, I see that there’s an attorney in Oregon seeking a DNA test, and I can only wish Daniel the best if he is indeed Larry’s son. I can only hope he doesn’t grow up like the people who have surrounded him for most of his life so far.
I’m going to get off your case about all of this, but I will point out one other thing: I’m not just interested in your credibility regarding telling the truth about Larry, but the Lonnie Frisbee documentary as well. Allow me to quote from you one more time:
“Too… how many people got so bent out of shape because the doc said that both Chuck Smith and John Wimber pushed Lonnie out of their lives. With Wimber it is obvious. With Chuck, Sr., I think he protests that because he allowed Lonnie to come back later on. While I don’t think it was as grievous as Wimber’s dismissal, I think there was a clear message sent to Lonnie that he was never going to fit in. Why, for instance, was Lonnie never ordained by Calvary Chapel but had to seek ordination from another organization someone else?”
Hello? Lonnie Frisbee was in sin and you expect Calvary to ordain him? Wimber showed a long history of trusting people who were of less than sterling character! Doesn’t surprise me he ordained Frisbee- remember the Kansas City Prophets thing?
But to get to my point: David, put your money where your mouth is.
Get an interview with Chuck Smith and have him respond to things you have said. Get someone who speaks on John Wimber’s behalf in the Vineyard to do the same. Re-cut FRISBEE with the new interviews. I dare you! Put an end to your scenario of good guys vs. bad guys and give us balanced journalism, and you might find people are less hard on you about all of this.
Because I know for a fact that Lonnie had nothing to do with the growth of any church. John Courson went to Oregon at Chuck Smiths’ behest, and founded a church that I am quite familiar with. Where was Lonnie? Not needed, it’s the Lord who builds his church. But don’t forget, it was the “Apostle” -using the term loosely- that was set apart by God to do the work.
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 6 at 5:44pm
Kevin… I have no time to spend explaining anymore.
I didn’t read this long letter.
I don’t really read much of what you offer.
But I did try.
July 6 at 6:17pm
David- it’s not rocket science. All I”m saying comes down to this: Present both sides! Thats’ not to much to ask.
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 6 at 6:27pm
you don’t even know what both sides are…how can you be the judge of whether i presented them or not.
you know little about this guy that you are devoted to. he did a good job of hiding his tracks. i wish he was around to answer some of these charges. it’d be interesting to hear him try and bluff his way through this stuff.
July 6 at 6:32pm
I mean not only in regards to Larry but the Frisbee/Calvary thing and EVRYTHING. Yeah it’s obvious you aren’t reading anything I’ve said. We’re talking past each other right now. Ciao.
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 6 at 6:52pm
Dude, you aren’t capable of making those kinds of arguments.
You aren’t astute enough.
July 6 at 6:56pm
LOL Okaaaayyyyy- There ya go. You’re smarter than every1 else. Duly noted.
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 6 at 7:29pm
You can’t even understand a simple email.
I wasn’t making comparisons.
But you have done no investigation… no homework… you haven’t talked to anyone. And yet, you are adamant that you know.
And now you are speaking about the Lonnie project as well.
How is it that everyone who knows better than me has done no investigation whatsoever? It is amazing to me.
Not much other conclusion to draw then is there?
July 6 at 7:34pm
OK then, let’s get to the end of that long-winded email of mine and we’ll make it simple:
Interview Chuck Smith & a rep from Vineyard who speaks on Wimber’s behalf. Re-cut FRISBEE with those included.
This will do 2 things:
1) Tell the other side of the story
2) Include a testimony from those who were there and actually are more astute than EITHER of us.
Sounds resonable to me.
David Di Sabatino
Add as Friend
July 6 at 7:37pm
Kevin… that would make it your movie. Not mine.
Again, you seem to not understand that both Chuck Jr. and Kenn Gulliksen were there in the beginnings… and neither of them are pro-CC or pro-Vineyard… but they were about the only ones to tell the truth.
But you keep telling yourself all of this… because you know…
Good for you.