|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 16, 2013 21:40:59 GMT -5
While researching for the Thread asking us to remember John Lennon, I came across this article and it angers me, the so-called "Top Ten Unpleasant Facts about John Lennon:" listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/This is why Paul McCartney and us fans must stop our sniping and defend John! He was not perfect but he obviously was a large part of something that millions of us cherish! Not talented!? This is what we are facing 33 years on out. John was not allowed to do all the amazing stuff Paul has done since 1980 yet we know John was experiencing a creative rebirth when he was brutally murdered. Had John lived, there'd be no such article like this!
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 16, 2013 22:27:28 GMT -5
Oh man thats great. And you know what a sucker i am for nasty gossip. So thanks for posting this John.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 16, 2013 22:31:45 GMT -5
But only 8 out of 10 are true in my humble and egomaniac opinion. Number 7 is clearly wrong. "I started the Beatles and i disbanded the Beatles" said John. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 16, 2013 22:35:47 GMT -5
And number 5 "talentless" ?? You gotta be kidding me. He was one of the great artistic talents of all time. Ask any musician about
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 16, 2013 22:57:41 GMT -5
.....ask any musician about John Lennons talents. The greatest musicians in rock were in awe of John Lennons talents. Dylan, Hendrix, the Grateful Dead. ALL of them. And rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 17, 2013 5:29:29 GMT -5
It's an interesting piece because, lack all the best hatchet jobs, everything in it contains a grain of truth. However, both hatchet jobs and puff pieces lose their effectiveness when they are entirely one-sided.
To take his points one by one: 1. Wife-beater - yes, but he grew out of it (except, arguably, when under the influence). 2. Poor Dad to Julian - yes, but he improved (never perfect, but who is?). 3. Pathological liar - pejorative way of encompassing a) contemporary publicity playing with the truth, and b) changing your mind, which we all do. 4. Broke up The Beatles - yes, but it's only part of the story. 5. Politically clueless - true, but he meant well. 6. Talentless - not over-talented in the conventional sense, but it was his unconventionality which was his strength. And how can you discuss talent and ignore that voice? 7. Follower not a leader - it is possible to be both, although I agree that his tendency to hitch himself to trendy right-on bandwagons was regrettable. 8. Conformist - there is truth in here, but it ignores the fact that it is possible to be both conformist and non-conformist at the same time in different areas. 9. Desperate for money and fame - of course! And then he learnt that it wasn't the answer to what he was looking for. And in any case, so what? 10. Hypocrite - yes. Me too. And I bet you'll have trouble finding anyone who doesn't have contradictory aspects to their character.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 17, 2013 7:01:16 GMT -5
1. Wife-beater - yes, but he grew out of it (except, arguably, when under the influence). If it's true that John ever beat a woman, and if it was under the influence of alcohol, this is a bad thing but it was the booze affecting him. The main thing is, John overcame this flaw and went on to respect women and help out with Women's Rights and Feminism. (And you can thank Yoko Ono for helping John come to this growth as a person). You cannot go back and change what already happened, but you can make up for it and grow. It makes perfect sense that an immature 22-year-old having an accidental child when on the cusp of super-stardom with a phenomenon like The Beatles, would negelect his son. I don't know if Julian is still whining about his "misfortune" these days. but if he is, he needs to grow up and get over it. My own dad was also 22 and a drinker at the time I was born, and was not a very good dad (he's now deceased). But I realize some people are not perfect, and a 22-year-old "man" is still like an immature kid in many ways at that age and most often has lots of growing up and responsibility to still master. Bottom Line is, he matured and learned from his mistakes and made it up to Julian in later life as best he could, and was completely devoted to his second son, Sean - even stopping his musical career. That is just wonderful. I have never seen John as a pathological liar, but he has changed his mind, which is fine. So do I. It's part of what a thinking and soul-searching person will do, as they consider the shades of gray to things throughout their life. PAUL is the one who has the historical distinction of officially breaking up The Beatles -- not John. I only WISH that John would have stuck to his guns and done it, because he started the band, and he was the one after the 1969 Toronto gig to say "it's over". Paul was shocked to hear John say this, so he and Klein and everyone else asked Lennon to keep it quiet --- then Paul went 'round and announced he was leaving. Some things clueless maybe, others not. The main thing is, yes -- he meant well. Absurd. No Comment. He was a bit of both at various times. very human. He could be both, depending on the situation. For the most part, John Lennon was most uncomfortable when he felt he HAD to conform. I have never thought of John as one to seek the money and the fame. He gave it all up in '76 to raise his son. I'm sure he didn't mind the money and fame to aid his political agendas during that period, but John did not seem to b e the type to chase after The Almighty Dollar. I agree with vectis' reply -- and "hypocrite" is a harsh word in this case.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 17, 2013 17:07:45 GMT -5
It's an interesting piece because, lack all the best hatchet jobs, everything in it contains a grain of truth. However, both hatchet jobs and puff pieces lose their effectiveness when they are entirely one-sided. To take his points one by one: 1. Wife-beater - yes, but he grew out of it (except, arguably, when under the influence). 2. Poor Dad to Julian - yes, but he improved (never perfect, but who is?). 3. Pathological liar - pejorative way of encompassing a) contemporary publicity playing with the truth, and b) changing your mind, which we all do. 4. Broke up The Beatles - yes, but it's only part of the story. 5. Politically clueless - true, but he meant well. 6. Talentless - not over-talented in the conventional sense, but it was his unconventionality which was his strength. And how can you discuss talent and ignore that voice? 7. Follower not a leader - it is possible to be both, although I agree that his tendency to hitch himself to trendy right-on bandwagons was regrettable. 8. Conformist - there is truth in here, but it ignores the fact that it is possible to be both conformist and non-conformist at the same time in different areas. 9. Desperate for money and fame - of course! And then he learnt that it wasn't the answer to what he was looking for. And in any case, so what? 10. Hypocrite - yes. Me too. And I bet you'll have trouble finding anyone who doesn't have contradictory aspects to their character. That's a fair response to all and there may be one of these "Top 10" for Paul as this seems to be a list that covers many famous people. I would be equally angry at a hatchet job on Paul as I was here for John.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 25, 2013 5:34:37 GMT -5
John mentioned most of those things as faults throughout his life. He did talk about his journey and his feelings and how he was and what he was becoming reasonably truthfully.
I think you know an author is struggling when they take the "imagine no possessions" millionaire rock star angle. A point has been well and truly missed.
The lyrics of Strawberry Fields are far from rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 25, 2013 10:22:34 GMT -5
John mentioned most of those things as faults throughout his life. He did talk about his journey and his feelings and how he was and what he was becoming reasonably truthfully. I think you know an author is struggling when they take the "imagine no possessions" millionaire rock star angle. A point has been well and truly missed. The lyrics of Strawberry Fields are far from rubbish. That's a good point, Andy. John admitted to many of these "unpleasant" things about him. Many of us see some of those same flaws in ourselves and thus relate to the man. Some like the not very talented is rubbish. This writer forgets that John's "occupation" was in Rock and Roll and not medicine or nuclear physics and among rockers, John was one of the best. He is clearly in the top echelon of rockers as is Paul McCartney.
|
|