|
Post by stavros on Mar 5, 2010 11:26:42 GMT -5
I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on Yoko Ono's influence on the Beatles and John?Plus the question - What if their paths had never crossed?
I look at it a number of ways. John needed control and discipline to his life. Something that he alone could not provide for himself. Brian Epstein provided it as manager of the Beatles. But once he died John had no one to look to. Paul was not the answer. In fact if anything he maybe felt usurped as leader of the band and was becoming agitated by Paul's continued work ethic and output. Yoko came and gave him inspiration. He saw a true equal and partner in her. Without her John may have lost the plot completely and become another rock icon to see their life ended by drugs in the late 60s or early 70s.
I really don't understand why they became radical political activists "in the name of peace" in the seventies. And I still really don't see John as the great man of peace Yoko likes to paint as. To me he was full of contradictions. And it always felt as though Yoko was a blocker to a full on Beatles re-union in the 70s. There are various tales that may or may not be true
However had their paths never crossed then I still don't think the Beatles could have carried on full time as they were. Relationships with each other were starting to crumble. But who knows?
|
|
wooltonian
Very Clean
"Football isn't a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that." Bill Shankly.
Posts: 796
|
Post by wooltonian on Mar 5, 2010 13:44:07 GMT -5
I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on Yoko Ono's influence on the Beatles and John?Plus the question - What if their paths had never crossed? I look at it a number of ways. John needed control and discipline to his life. Something that he alone could not provide for himself. Brian Epstein provided it as manager of the Beatles. But once he died John had no one to look to. Paul was not the answer. In fact if anything he maybe felt usurped as leader of the band and was becoming agitated by Paul's continued work ethic and output. Yoko came and gave him inspiration. He saw a true equal and partner in her. Without her John may have lost the plot completely and become another rock icon to see their life ended by drugs in the late 60s or early 70s. I really don't understand why they became radical political activists "in the name of peace" in the seventies. And I still really don't see John as the great man of peace Yoko likes to paint as. To me he was full of contradictions. And it always felt as though Yoko was a blocker to a full on Beatles re-union in the 70s. There are various tales that may or may not be true However had their paths never crossed then I still don't think the Beatles could have carried on full time as they were. Relationships with each other were starting to crumble. But who knows? I think Yoko's influence was mostly good, to be honest, Stavros. Musically, the Beatles had come full circle by the time of 'Abbey Road' and John found his soulmate with Yoko. I would have hated for the Beatles to have become like the Rolling Stones - a long, slow descent into mediocrity....and I wouldn't for a minute want John stuck in a loveless marriage, so I see Yoko's arrival on the scene as a generally positive thing... ...my only regret is that the break up itself (and, in particular, the demise of Lennon's relationship with Macca) was unnecessarily acrimonious --- but these things happen.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Mar 5, 2010 18:01:39 GMT -5
I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on Yoko Ono's influence on the Beatles and John?Plus the question - What if their paths had never crossed? I look at it a number of ways. John needed control and discipline to his life. Something that he alone could not provide for himself. Brian Epstein provided it as manager of the Beatles. But once he died John had no one to look to. Paul was not the answer. In fact if anything he maybe felt usurped as leader of the band and was becoming agitated by Paul's continued work ethic and output. Yoko came and gave him inspiration. He saw a true equal and partner in her. Without her John may have lost the plot completely and become another rock icon to see their life ended by drugs in the late 60s or early 70s. I really don't understand why they became radical political activists "in the name of peace" in the seventies. And I still really don't see John as the great man of peace Yoko likes to paint as. To me he was full of contradictions. And it always felt as though Yoko was a blocker to a full on Beatles re-union in the 70s. There are various tales that may or may not be true However had their paths never crossed then I still don't think the Beatles could have carried on full time as they were. Relationships with each other were starting to crumble. But who knows? The "what if they'd never crossed paths" is interesting. Honestly, whether we want to realize it or not, Yoko subtly (or perhaps subliminally) made a positive contribution to the Beatles with her edginess. Without her, they might not have progressed as they did, or even experimented (Revolution #9) as they did.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Mar 5, 2010 18:33:48 GMT -5
I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on Yoko Ono's influence on the Beatles and John?Plus the question - What if their paths had never crossed? I look at it a number of ways. John needed control and discipline to his life. Something that he alone could not provide for himself. Brian Epstein provided it as manager of the Beatles. But once he died John had no one to look to. Paul was not the answer. In fact if anything he maybe felt usurped as leader of the band and was becoming agitated by Paul's continued work ethic and output. Yoko came and gave him inspiration. He saw a true equal and partner in her. Without her John may have lost the plot completely and become another rock icon to see their life ended by drugs in the late 60s or early 70s. I really don't understand why they became radical political activists "in the name of peace" in the seventies. And I still really don't see John as the great man of peace Yoko likes to paint as. To me he was full of contradictions. And it always felt as though Yoko was a blocker to a full on Beatles re-union in the 70s. There are various tales that may or may not be true However had their paths never crossed then I still don't think the Beatles could have carried on full time as they were. Relationships with each other were starting to crumble. But who knows? The "what if they'd never crossed paths" is interesting. Honestly, whether we want to realize it or not, Yoko subtly (or perhaps subliminally) made a positive contribution to the Beatles with her edginess. Without her, they might not have progressed as they did, or even experimented (Revolution #9) as they did. Actually, the Beatles were progressing pretty far with their music before Yoko came on the scene, as can be attested by the musical advances shown in 'Rubber Soul', 'Revolver', 'Strawberry Fields Forever', 'Penny Lane', 'Sgt. Pepper' and 'Magical Mystery Tour'. If anyone was affected by her influence, it was John moreso than the others. Her influence could seen more in John's tracks on the 'White Album' than in the previously mentioned albums. The Beatles were pretty edgy to begin with. I don't think Yoko's involvment had as much influence on the others as it did, good or bad, on John.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 5, 2010 19:47:52 GMT -5
I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on Yoko Ono's influence on the Beatles and John?Plus the question - What if their paths had never crossed? Very interesting, but probably ultimately unanswerable question. John seemed to view Yoko as the answer to all of his prayers and his salvation, but its been pointed out that John seemed to get progressively unhappier from the moment he met Yoko. Its possible, though, he would have been even worse off without her. Will never know with these "the road not taken" kind of questions. One thing's for sure: John himself felt he couldn't live without her, that he would self-destruct without her allegedly stabalizing influence. Which is why he abdicated virtually all power and control to Yoko, I suspect as much out of fear that she would leave him than out of love. Just my opinion. John basically seemed to see himself as a helpless little boy and Yoko as the all-powerful Mother figure.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Mar 6, 2010 4:06:28 GMT -5
I was just wondering what people's thoughts are on Yoko Ono's influence on the Beatles and John?Plus the question - What if their paths had never crossed? Very interesting, but probably ultimately unanswerable question. John seemed to view Yoko as the answer to all of his prayers and his salvation, but its been pointed out that John seemed to get progressively unhappier from the moment he met Yoko. Its possible, though, he would have been even worse off without her. Will never know with these "the road not taken" kind of questions. One thing's for sure: John himself felt he couldn't live without her, that he would self-destruct without her allegedly stabalizing influence. Which is why he abdicated virtually all power and control to Yoko, I suspect as much out of fear that she would leave him than out of love. Just my opinion. John basically seemed to see himself as a helpless little boy and Yoko as the all-powerful Mother figure. Well when he was without her during the lost weekend he seemed pretty good. He certainly looked healthier. I'm not talking about the first part of the Lost Weekend I'm talking about the second half where he distanced himself from Harry Nillson and the drinking etc....
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 6, 2010 5:55:53 GMT -5
My view is that Yoko offered John the spiritual fulfilment which he had failed to get from art, music, The Beatles, his creative partnership with Paul, marriage, parenthood, drugs, meditation etc., in fact everything he had ever tried/experienced except, possibly, his mother, which is why he identified Yoko so closely with her.
As a result, he immediately installed her as his artistic/musical partner in place of Paul, something which it pleased him to do but which greatly reduced the value of his recorded output as far as I personally was concerned - with a few standout exceptions (on most of which Paul's fingerprints can be clearly seen) John's post-Yoko musical output falls far short of his pre-Yoko output to these ears.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 6, 2010 6:40:19 GMT -5
John seeemed to view Yoko as the answer to all of his prayers and his salvation, but its been pointed out that John seemed to get progressively unhappier from the moment he met Yoko. Where do you get that notion? Certainly not from John himself. Even without John telling us, it's blatantly obvious the man was never happier in his life than when he was her. True, but I think his love songs speak for themselves. I've never heard such expressions of love by one artist. Why some fans try to crush and under-value the whole John&Yoko thing, just because the woman happened to be Yoko Ono (and not someone more conventional), and because the Beatles split, is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Mar 6, 2010 9:24:07 GMT -5
I think John's post Beatles music was the most courageous of the four. Up until SINYC he was still a genius and he's the only artist to have the intestinal fortitude to make that album but although the concept was great the execution wasn't and it failed. So John's May Pang album's went back to pop but mature pop and some of those songs are still regarded quite highly in the Lennon canon.
In saying that none of the Beatles were as edgy , experimental or dared to take risks in their solo careers as when they were together.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 6, 2010 9:42:56 GMT -5
. . . I would have hated for the Beatles to have become like the Rolling Stones - a long, slow descent into mediocrity.... There are those who might argue (they are on this board, too) that they did this quite well on their own as solo artists. Oh, and this "slow descent into mediocrity" that is always attached to the Stones really is a myth. Anyone who has consistently seen the Stones live, including the 2-3 last tours, will attest that they still deliver. Sure, there may be an isolated show here and there where they're not as tight as they could be and there is a lack of energy, and sure there are people who will say, "I saw them back in the 80s and they were much better," but to suggest that seeing the Stones live is as painful and embarrassing as, say, seeing Muhammad Ali in the ring is just not so. There were people in the 80s who were saying they were not as good as in the 70s and people in the 70s saying they were better in the 60s, and people in the 60s saying they were better in the Marquee Club. Fact is, seeing the Stones is seldom a waste of money or time. I will concede that maybe they should play smaller venues rather than the stadiums. Recording artists? Yeah, no hits, but that doesn't mean the songs suck. They are in the artisan part of their lives, rather than the assembly line stage. Just because their sound and style is not current doesn't mean it's not good.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 6, 2010 10:10:12 GMT -5
Funny. A couple of weeks ago I was sitting on my surfboard waiting and waiting and waiting for the next set of waves to arrive. With all that down time, one's mind often wanders and wonders. I came across this thought: What if Yoko's relationship to John was one really giant conceptual art piece? Maybe she and her Fluxus and post-modern art friends pondered what would happen in the pop world if the ultimate leaders of that pop world were infiltrated by a most non-pop person. Initially, no love or affection was intended. Like an artist with a blank canvas or a writer with a blank page, they had no idea were this "Pop/Not Pop" conceptual art work would go, but they were curious. What they saw was - everything. Love, lust, greed, alienation, disillusionment, hatred, peace, racism, indulgence, abuse, dependency, enlightenment, naivete, pain, child birth, image reformation, politics . . . murder.
I'm not saying Yoko's feelings for John were not real or legitimate. I was just pondering, in a way that one ponders when they have too much time on their hands, what if The Love Story of John and Yoko was actually the ultimate piece of conceptual art. Art is life and life is art.
(To the theme of the Twilight Zone - do do do do, do do do do, do do do do . . .)
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 6, 2010 10:29:38 GMT -5
Some interesting comments here, re: a rather well-worn but oddly seldom discussed topic. It's quite a big "what-if"...
Here are comments made by Yoko in Paris in March 1969, just 4 days after marrying John (that is, after Let It Be was recorded, before Abbey Road was recorded, and a full year before The Beatles' "break up" became public):
"People said his divorce will mean a decline of his popularity, it will end his career. He didn't worry as much as I did... We received hundreds of horrible letters, the whole world was disagreeing our romance. Some girl insulted me in the street. I felt terribly responsible."
[Re: her wanting to separate John from The Beatles): "That is completely false. I am not so possessive! I never tried to convince John to leave the other Beatles and to start a new life with me. John and The Beatles are always good friends, as before, and they continue working together. I know them and we are on good terms. Each of them have strong, different and interesting personalities, I understood the miracle of their meeting. They had so many gifts, altogether it has given us The Beatles. "Little by little they were starting to be a real institution. They cannot go further. There is nothing above the top; they were and they are marvellous musicians. They were fantastic entertainers. That is not enough for a man's life, to fill John's life. He is able to do so many things. His only goal in life is for communication. His character, too, had changed now. He is sweeter, like Paul was at the beginning."
"Before I met him, I was starting to lose my interest in life. I truly was starting to die. For him it was just the same. He had got everything in his life but in the deepness of his mind he was dying too. He could not bear to be part of an institution, a sort of national movement."
"My only hope now -- I expect in two or three years John and I will be as well known as John and The Beatles. All over the world people will forget about violence if they follow our example and they realise how ridiculous it is."
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 6, 2010 14:24:48 GMT -5
Funny. A couple of weeks ago I was sitting on my surfboard waiting and waiting and waiting for the next set of waves to arrive. With all that down time, one's mind often wanders and wonders. And some shark wandering underneath you wondering whether you are a sea-lion! Yoko was apparently the spark John needed to get out of the intellectual nowhere land he was finding himself in by late 1966, 1967. What is fascinating to me is that John did not first meet Yoko, and thus start down the final road he took with her, when he was that long haired, disheveled, addict-looking guy from the cover of Two Virgins in mid-1968(the first night they purportedly made love) but on November, 9 1966 when he was still almost a Moptop, less than three months past Candlestick. This was the beginning of the new era for The Beatles soon to be ushered in by "Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane" and then SPLHCB. Beatles fans all first heard of Yoko in May of 1968 but what I would be interested in is a detailed and honest exploration of John and Yoko's encounters and communications from November 9, 1966, until May of 1968. This period gets shorted in all Lennon biographies discussing "johnandyoko" probably because John was still married to Cynthia.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Mar 6, 2010 21:34:44 GMT -5
Beatles fans all first heard of Yoko in May of 1968 but what I would be interested in is a detailed and honest exploration of John and Yoko's encounters and communications from November 9, 1966, until May of 1968. This period gets shorted in all Lennon biographies discussing "johnandyoko" probably because John was still married to Cynthia. Philip Norman's book goes into some detail, IIRC.
|
|
wooltonian
Very Clean
"Football isn't a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that." Bill Shankly.
Posts: 796
|
Post by wooltonian on Mar 7, 2010 3:48:19 GMT -5
. . . I would have hated for the Beatles to have become like the Rolling Stones - a long, slow descent into mediocrity.... There are those who might argue (they are on this board, too) that they did this quite well on their own as solo artists. Oh, and this "slow descent into mediocrity" that is always attached to the Stones really is a myth. Anyone who has consistently seen the Stones live, including the 2-3 last tours, will attest that they still deliver. Recording artists? Yeah, no hits, but that doesn't mean the songs suck. They are in the artisan part of their lives, rather than the assembly line stage. Just because their sound and style is not current doesn't mean it's not good. My long 'slow descent into mediocrity' comment about the Stones was typical wooltonian lazy cliche and generalisation -- and I'm certainly no expert on the Stones. In terms of the Stones' recorded output over, say, the past thirty years, I think it could certainly be argued that it falls some distance short of the stuff they were producing in the late sixties to mid seventies. I'm not even sure that the lack of hits is due to the lack of a 'current' sound -- there's still a massive market for a great rock song -- it's just that they stopped producing classic singles some time ago. There is a similarity and a definite parallel with Paul's career. Both are still a huge crowd draw and both still produce albums which create relatively little impact critically, but which sell respectably well to the hard-core fans.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 7, 2010 7:15:12 GMT -5
There are those who might argue (they are on this board, too) that they did this quite well on their own as solo artists. Doesn't matter; we're talking The Beatles, not the Solo Beatles. I'd argue that all four actually did very well apart all things considered, even thought its the sum of its parts and not the whole (however the saying goes). That's a matter of opinion. I happen to agree that the Stones DID descend into mediocrity by staying together way too long and recording the same ol' stuff on weak albums. The Beatles on record never deteriorated. I still enjoy the Rolling Stones' music overall, by the way - even some occasional later stuff. When it comes to the "still delivering on tour", that's a matter of opinion. But then again, I've never liked the way they sounded live as much as in the studio. I only saw them one time - in 1989 at Atlantic City during their STEEL WHEELS tour, and I thought they were pretty disappointing even then. If only I could get my time and money back from that 1989 show. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 7, 2010 11:57:47 GMT -5
. . . everyone's entitled to their own opinion You're right. However, the Stones have embarked on around 40 tours during their career. Even if we conservatively average that to 30 shows a tour, that's 1200 shows. Is one show in Atlantic City in 1989 really a basis to form any opinion? It's kinda like seeing one Steven Spielberg movie or eating one entree at a restaurant or trying on one pair of Levi's or hearing one song on one album and making a sweeping opinion statement about the entire whole. I guess that's one's right, but maybe it's better to say, "I'm not in a position to judge the Stones because I only saw them once. I didn't like it, but maybe it was an off night for them, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt." It's interesting that you said that you preferred the Stones sound on record than in concert. Hmmm. I think the consensus is that the Stones are a live band first. That is their strength. Not saying you are wrong, but again, after seeing them only once . . .
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Mar 7, 2010 14:20:08 GMT -5
There are those who might argue (they are on this board, too) that they did this quite well on their own as solo artists. Doesn't matter; we're talking The Beatles, not the Solo Beatles. I'd argue that all four actually did very well apart all things considered, even thought its the sum of its parts and not the whole (however the saying goes). Yes, as I've said before, the Beatles were/are the quintessential example of synergy. (Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls! - or nowadays, Wikipedia )
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 7, 2010 15:38:39 GMT -5
Doesn't matter; we're talking The Beatles, not the Solo Beatles. I'd argue that all four actually did very well apart all things considered, even thought its the sum of its parts and not the whole (however the saying goes). Yes, as I've said before, the Beatles were/are the quintessential example of synergy. (Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls! - or nowadays, Wikipedia ) Now, here is THE question. Is it because the solo songs were not as good or that the solo songs were not produced and arranged as well? Between '62 and '70 they had, what, 10 - 12 albums or so? Okay, so put together 10 albums worth of the best solo songs and you have pretty competitive stuff. My Sweet Lord, It Don't Come Easy, Cloud 9, Number 9 Dream, Tug of War, Blow Away, etc. I have always argued that the solo songs weren't that bad, but the way they arranged them was lacking. All those horns that John and George used. The Elephant's Memory Band. No "Beatle" harmonies. Cheesy keyboards. Gazillion musicians. I think that if the Beatles had stayed together and STILL enjoyed playing with each other and if George Martin stayed on, we would be rethinking a lot of those solo, now Beatle songs.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Mar 7, 2010 18:16:23 GMT -5
Yes, as I've said before, the Beatles were/are the quintessential example of synergy. (Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls! - or nowadays, Wikipedia ) Now, here is THE question. Is it because the solo songs were not as good or that the solo songs were not produced and arranged as well? Between '62 and '70 they had, what, 10 - 12 albums or so? Okay, so put together 10 albums worth of the best solo songs and you have pretty competitive stuff. My Sweet Lord, It Don't Come Easy, Cloud 9, Number 9 Dream, Tug of War, Blow Away, etc. I have always argued that the solo songs weren't that bad, but the way they arranged them was lacking. All those horns that John and George used. The Elephant's Memory Band. No "Beatle" harmonies. Cheesy keyboards. Gazillion musicians. I think that if the Beatles had stayed together and STILL enjoyed playing with each other and if George Martin stayed on, we would be rethinking a lot of those solo, now Beatle songs. Possibly. But sadly we'll never know...
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 7, 2010 19:06:49 GMT -5
Yes, as I've said before, the Beatles were/are the quintessential example of synergy. (Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls! - or nowadays, Wikipedia ) Now, here is THE question. Is it because the solo songs were not as good or that the solo songs were not produced and arranged as well? Between '62 and '70 they had, what, 10 - 12 albums or so? Okay, so put together 10 albums worth of the best solo songs and you have pretty competitive stuff. My Sweet Lord, It Don't Come Easy, Cloud 9, Number 9 Dream, Tug of War, Blow Away, etc. I have always argued that the solo songs weren't that bad, but the way they arranged them was lacking. All those horns that John and George used. The Elephant's Memory Band. No "Beatle" harmonies. Cheesy keyboards. Gazillion musicians. I think that if the Beatles had stayed together and STILL enjoyed playing with each other and if George Martin stayed on, we would be rethinking a lot of those solo, now Beatle songs. The fact is that only the 'best ' songs would make it to Beatles albums. So the albums in the 70s would still be top quality if George Martin was producing them. Don't forget that writing 10 -12 songs for an a solo album is a lot more difficult than writing the required 4 or 5 for a Beatles album. In fact George would have eased the burden as well. But that would be a whole question of ego as well. All totally conjecture by the way. I really think the Beatles were growing apart by 1968 and once Brian Epstein died it was the beginning of the end. To bring things back on topic I still believe Yoko gave John something to live for during this time. But there is still this feeling that she wanted John to be distant from his old band until his death.
|
|
wooltonian
Very Clean
"Football isn't a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that." Bill Shankly.
Posts: 796
|
Post by wooltonian on Mar 8, 2010 3:26:43 GMT -5
I think in order to understand how improtant Yoko was to John you have to have some understanding of John's frame of mind during 1966/67 -- in the year or two leading up to them striking up a proper relationship. Was John Happy? Fulfilled? Content with his life? -- or was he listless, drug-addled, out of sorts, lacking in purpose, even depressed?
I suspect the latter....which is why the arrival of Yoko in his life was such a positive thing to him and so pivotal in his life.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 8, 2010 5:56:57 GMT -5
I agree with Sayne - it's not so much the songs as the recordings, and there was something very special which happened on Beatles records. I think that it was the fact that the group simply had higher standards than the individual members, bbecause each of them could say to the others "That's not good enough as it is, it needs..." whereas, once they were making the individual decisions for themselves, there was no external criticism - who would dare? And, as a result, that magic which happened in the studio, stopped happening.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Mar 8, 2010 10:57:25 GMT -5
I think in order to understand how improtant Yoko was to John you have to have some understanding of John's frame of mind during 1966/67 -- in the year or two leading up to them striking up a proper relationship. Was John Happy? Fulfilled? Content with his life? -- or was he listless, drug-addled, out of sorts, lacking in purpose, even depressed? I suspect the latter....which is why the arrival of Yoko in his life was such a positive thing to him and so pivotal in his life. Agreed. And compare Cynthia with Yoko. Frankly, if I didn't know better, you'd figure Cynthia was the ideal girl. But obviously, she wasn't, at least in his eyes.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 8, 2010 11:10:49 GMT -5
I think in order to understand how improtant Yoko was to John you have to have some understanding of John's frame of mind during 1966/67 -- in the year or two leading up to them striking up a proper relationship. Was John Happy? Fulfilled? Content with his life? -- or was he listless, drug-addled, out of sorts, lacking in purpose, even depressed? I suspect the latter....which is why the arrival of Yoko in his life was such a positive thing to him and so pivotal in his life. Exactly! That is what I was mentioning above. John was in this surreal place by 1967, and it appears that he was, "listless, drug-addled, out-of-sorts...even depressed." Yoko was an intellectual spark to him(along with the relatively clean stay in India) and John roared again on the White Album. John and Yoko's relationship was not perfect of course and their's seems to have been a rollercoaster of emotions and actions. Yoko either could not stop John or actually encouraged his heroin use to address the emotional pain and that was a major setback for John personally and artistically through 1969. Yoko's influence on John cannot be understated and her appearance on the scene undoubtedly hastened the break-up of The Beatles but I won't say it was the sole cause. With Yoko, John just didn't care about Beatles except to the extent he could use it for his and Yoko's gain, not just monetarily but for a public platform. Without Yoko, I suspect John could easily have gone the way of Brian Wilson and been a guy who lost it, stayed isolated in his bedroom and Paul and George would prop him up whenever they needed him for a Beatles' appearance. That was Brian Wilson for the late 60's, the whole 70's and into the early 80's with the Beach Boys. In the studio Brian could still contribute something but watch any concert of the BB's from the 70's or early 80's and Brian is a prop on stage, if he is even there. Yoko probably saved John from that in the sense that she sparked in him his primal survival instincts. It was not without many bumps in the road though and I have always wondered if John suffered from clinical depression or some other untreated mental illness that was never properly treated as John's highs and lows were so pronounced.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 8, 2010 11:47:11 GMT -5
That's interesting. Was John an undiagnosed bipolar?
Despite the HUGE amount of living in the public eye for half his lifetime, I doubt there's enough publicly available evidence to be sure one way or the other. To put it another way, was some of his drug use in reaction to bipolar disorder? Conversely, did his drug use result in bipolar-type behaviour?
As a completely unqualified non-expert(!) I'm inclined towards the latter. John always appeared to me to be: 1. Profoundly affected by the parental shenanigans when he was young; 2. Profoundly affected by the deaths in quick succession of three people who meant a huge amount to him; 3. Initially pleased to achieve fame and fortune; 4. Impressionable and susceptible to outside influences (drugs, assorted hangers-on, causes etc.); 5. Above everything else, looking for spiritual fulfilment.
None of that has ever struck me as particularly bipolar in nature: much of the most negative stuff could easily derive from drug use.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 8, 2010 13:37:13 GMT -5
That's interesting. Was John an undiagnosed bipolar? Despite the HUGE amount of living in the public eye for half his lifetime, I doubt there's enough publicly available evidence to be sure one way or the other. To put it another way, was some of his drug use in reaction to bipolar disorder? Conversely, did his drug use result in bipolar-type behaviour? As a completely unqualified non-expert(!) I'm inclined towards the latter. John always appeared to me to be: 1. Profoundly affected by the parental shenanigans when he was young; 2. Profoundly affected by the deaths in quick succession of three people who meant a huge amount to him; 3. Initially pleased to achieve fame and fortune; 4. Impressionable and susceptible to outside influences (drugs, assorted hangers-on, causes etc.); 5. Above everything else, looking for spiritual fulfilment. None of that has ever struck me as particularly bipolar in nature: much of the most negative stuff could easily derive from drug use. That is interesting. As you note vectis, we'll never know. I am just speculating on a mental illness but man could John be all over the place and was he ever restless emotionally. It is fair to state that there was a constant storm brewing in John's mind. That was probably why he was the artist we cherish.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 8, 2010 16:52:35 GMT -5
John seemed to view Yoko as the answer to all of his prayers and his salvation, but its been pointed out that John seemed to get progressively unhappier from the moment he met Yoko. Where do you get that notion? Certainly not from John himself. Even without John telling us, it's blatantly obvious the man was never happier in his life than when he was her. What John publicly SAID about his relationship with Yoko, and what it actually WAS, may well have been two different things. This is just my outside-looking-in perspective, but John always struck me as a fairly tormented person. Before meeting Yoko, and even moreso afterwards. Take a quick look at his after-meeting-Yoko life: Primal Scream sessions: literally screaming in pain and agony. "John had more pain in him than anyone I've ever met," said Arthur Janov, the Primal Scream therapist. Lost Weekend: John literally went berzerk in an orgy of drugs, drink and violence. The years of seclusion: There are many accounts during this period where Yoko seriously fretted that John had gone completely mad and was on the verge of committing suicide. Especially during the months of isolation holed up in Japan. But like I said, its always possible that he would've ended up even worse without Yoko.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 8, 2010 17:03:11 GMT -5
Why some fans try to crush and under-value the whole John&Yoko thing, just because the woman happened to be Yoko Ono (and not someone more conventional), and because the Beatles split, is beyond me. Personally, I find the John-and-Yoko period more interesting than the Beatles period. The Beatles music was better. But I'm fascinated by the psycho-drama and artistic/cultural statements of the Yoko years.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 8, 2010 17:17:42 GMT -5
What John publicly SAID about his relationship with Yoko, and what it actually WAS, may well have been two different things. I think it's extremely obvious the man was into this woman. Oh, I'm not saying there weren't times where the relationship could be a drain -- nothing's perfect all the time -- but overall, she saved him "from a kind of death". Yes, but this was all the stuff he'd repressed throughout his entire life, especially since childhood and because of his mother and father. That's the stuff he was addressing through Primal Scream Therapy; it's not like he suddenly went to Janov in order to vent out his "Yoko Pain". He went to pieces without Yoko. "Many"? I think that's a given.
|
|