|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 26, 2010 11:38:10 GMT -5
A number of recent things have set me thinking, as a result of which I am about to say something which I have never confessed to a soul - in fact, it's only in the last day or so that I have acknowledged that it might be a possibility. And, having acknowledged that, I then find it staring me in the face, and I either admit it to myself or find a way of convincing myself that it's not true. Which I haven't been able to do. And, having faced it and admitted it, I might as well admit it to everyone else. I'm pretty sure - after careful self examination, and looking at all the evidence to the extent that I can no longer deny it - I'm pretty sure I'm not a John Lennon fan. It really hurts me to say that, because I continue to be a Beatles fan. But I was a fan of Beatle John and, as John himself said, Beatle John was a fiction. And when the real John Lennon arrived - or, rather, most of the various shifting aspects of the highly fluid real John Lennon - I pretty much didn't like a lot of them. I didn't dislike all of them - I always liked humorous John, warm John, sad John - but I never liked angry John, pretentious John, radical John, and quite a few of the facades he chose to dress himself up in during the 70s. And that carried over into his music. With the exception of some of the more sentimental Double Fantasy material and the odd track off Imagine, John's solo material not only never slipped into my heart the way his Beatles material did, it often positively alienated me. I loved him, and it broke a little part of my heart when he died, but I don't think I was a fan of him as a non-Beatle at all. I feel better now I've got that off my chest. Please don't judge me....
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 26, 2010 11:47:02 GMT -5
That's OK, vectis. The "real" John was hard to take at times....even by his "beast friends"!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 26, 2010 13:44:01 GMT -5
A number of recent things have set me thinking, as a result of which I am about to say something which I have never confessed to a soul - in fact, it's only in the last day or so that I have acknowledged that it might be a possibility. And, having acknowledged that, I then find it staring me in the face, and I either admit it to myself or find a way of convincing myself that it's not true. Which I haven't been able to do. And, having faced it and admitted it, I might as well admit it to everyone else. I'm pretty sure - after careful self examination, and looking at all the evidence to the extent that I can no longer deny it - I'm pretty sure I'm not a John Lennon fan. It really hurts me to say that, because I continue to be a Beatles fan. But I was a fan of Beatle John and, as John himself said, Beatle John was a fiction. And when the real John Lennon arrived - or, rather, most of the various shifting aspects of the highly fluid real John Lennon - I pretty much didn't like a lot of them. I didn't dislike all of them - I always liked humorous John, warm John, sad John - but I never liked angry John, pretentious John, radical John, and quite a few of the facades he chose to dress himself up in during the 70s. And that carried over into his music. With the exception of some of the more sentimental Double Fantasy material and the odd track off Imagine, John's solo material not only never slipped into my heart the way his Beatles material did, it often positively alienated me. I loved him, and it broke a little part of my heart when he died, but I don't think I was a fan of him as a non-Beatle at all. I feel better now I've got that off my chest. Please don't judge me.... No man is qualified to judge another man's feelings. I can certainly understand where you are coming from. There have been many individuals in history who had many fallibilities as human beings, yet made great contributions to society. I feel sorry for John because his childhood traumas contributed greatly to his personality later in his life. The fact that Paul, George, & Ringo and some of his long-time friends like Pete Shotton, and Klaus Voorman were willing to overlook John's shortcomings, and still speak warmly of him in spite of how John would often treat them says a lot for what John was really like underneath all that horrible baggage he had to carry. You might find your opinion of him may change again as you move on in life, or it may not. But I agree with you, Beatle John gave us all something really special through his music. And we are grateful for that.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 26, 2010 14:01:47 GMT -5
Perfectly within your right to confess, vectis!
I suspect that all of us have doubts about solo Lennon(or large parts of it) sometimes but don't want to own up.
I can hit spells where I just don't play any of it but then most of the time I'm back to embracing it warmly.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Nov 26, 2010 20:08:35 GMT -5
Vectis, your most interesting line was the following: "With the exception of some of the more sentimental Double Fantasy material and the odd track off Imagine, John's solo material not only never slipped into my heart the way his Beatles material did, it often positively alienated me."
That immediately made me think of JL/POB. As much as I try, I can't warm up to that album. I give credit to John for not being afraid to explore those subjects, but the results leave me cold. Its not that nothing interests me on the album. Love is a fine song though the lyrics are a bit trite: Love is real, real is love. But it just never gets off the ground for me.
Even the song Imagine which is a work of musical genius and is performed brilliantly, leaves me lyrically alienated. The two other songs I really like from Imagine were written in 1968: Oh My Love and Jealous Guy and another one that passable (Gimmie Some Truth) was worked on by both John and Paul during the Let It Be sessions in January 1969. There is even evidence of the tune for Imagine being worked out at the Beatles sessions in early 1969.
The point is that John had to go back two and three years to come up with the best Imagine songs. And the newly written ones (Crippled Inside, Its So Hard, I Don't Want To Be A Soldier, How? and Oh Yoko) are not compelling. The only other song How Do You Sleep? is first saved by George's slide guitar and Spector's string arrangement and then ultimately sabotaged by its over the top mean spirited lyrics.
Was John trying to alienate a portion of his audience who liked the safe funny ever-confident mop top Beatle? Was there an intentional need to do so further with songs like Woman Is the Nigger of the World? When he finally got back to square one with Mind Games again he had to reach back a few years for the title song and the rest was a poorly produced group of yawns.
I maintain that Whatever Gets You through the Night only became No. 1 because it sounded more like Elton John than anyone else. Even the riff from No. 9 Dream came from one of the session guitarists according to John himself. It wasn't until Double Fantasy that he got back being Beatle John. Maybe its our fault for not accepting him as he wanted to be accepted. As an entity beyond Beatle John. The problem is that for the most part the new incarnation of John wasn't very likable. And as Vectis said, it pretty much carried into his music.
Certainly the early solo John had some highlights: Live Peace in Toronto, Instant Karma--even Cold Turkey. But there is a point where he ran too far away from what we thought he really was for the first 6 or 7 years of the Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 27, 2010 5:53:17 GMT -5
That immediately made me think of JL/POB. As much as I try, I can't warm up to that album. I give credit to John for not being afraid to explore those subjects, but the results leave me cold. Its not that nothing interests me on the album. Love is a fine song though the lyrics are a bit trite: Love is real, real is love. But it just never gets off the ground for me. Well, if you've never had similar moments of pain, despair, hurt feelings and depression (but I've always naturally assumed we all did at one time or another, but I guess not?) I could see why something like POB would alienate the both of you. If they had been written around Beatles time and if Paul had perhaps had some kind of input on any of them, I'd bet you'd feel differently. A perfect example of this bias of yours is when you give GIMME SOME TRUTH a free pass because John and Paul worked on it during the Let It Be sessions! That one song is typical of something that's "pure Lennon politics" and something that is more Solo Lennon in feel and as "Un-Beatley as you can get"... but because it was slightly worked on during LIB, it's okay. Pffffffffftttttt. Sez you. I sez the lyrics make it. That's why John was great and Paulie was a cookie cutter craftsman churning out nuthin' much but silly love songs. It's why there are so many various fascinating documentaries about John, but practically little to say about the others (even after the Scorsese George doc comes along, what else will remain to be said after that? Will there be enough facets to George to warrant multiple docs on him?) Oh, please, RTG. Even though Elton's voice is more prominent on the track, I wouldn't even know it was Elton John's voice on there if I hadn't been told. I also don't think this song sounded like a typical Elton John song of that period at all. I doubt anyone hearing the song on the radio in 1974 thought "WOW! A new and great Elton John song!". But how come you can defend all of those times where Paulie got "different"? You're always writing posts explaining about how Paulie was "more avant garde than John," and all that stuff. Why do you not slam Paulie when he tried to "alienate Beatles fans" with uncharacteristic stuff like McCARTNEY, RAM, WILD LIFE, and other things? You respect Paul's GIVE IRELAND BACK TO THE IRISH... Why are all those okay with you, whereas if John had done them you'd be bashing them? Interesting how you let stuff like TORONTO and COLD TURKEY pass. Why is this? Is it because those efforts were done when John was still with The Beatles? How does the screaming and pained COLD TURKEY pass for you, whereas the similarly pained and personal material on POB does not? Get over The Beatles. What is this stuff that "John didn't get back to being Beatle John until...."?? Why is that so important to remain stagnant and never to grow? All four of The Beatles got fed up with being "The Old Lovable moptop". Even Paul for a time, early on. RTG, your posts do make me want to praise Lennon more than ever before and to reduce Paul down to silliness. Your crusades against Lennon and trying to emasculate him to some how "balance the scales" only causes the opposite effect from what your goal is.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 27, 2010 6:18:34 GMT -5
A number of recent things have set me thinking, as a result of which I am about to say something which I have never confessed to a soul - in fact, it's only in the last day or so that I have acknowledged that it might be a possibility. And, having acknowledged that, I then find it staring me in the face, and I either admit it to myself or find a way of convincing myself that it's not true. Which I haven't been able to do. And, having faced it and admitted it, I might as well admit it to everyone else. I'm pretty sure - after careful self examination, and looking at all the evidence to the extent that I can no longer deny it - I'm pretty sure I'm not a John Lennon fan. It really hurts me to say that, because I continue to be a Beatles fan. But I was a fan of Beatle John and, as John himself said, Beatle John was a fiction. And when the real John Lennon arrived - or, rather, most of the various shifting aspects of the highly fluid real John Lennon - I pretty much didn't like a lot of them. You are entitled to your feelings, Vectis. Everyone has some Beatle they may put #4 on their list of favorites (if I am correct in guessing you may put John on the bottom of your list). With you being a First Generation Fan who was older at the time they were doing their thing (whereas I was just 3 to 7), it's very easy to see how John could have alienated you when he went with Yoko and did all those very different and Un-Beatley projects. I don't think you've ever recovered from this, and that's just how it went for you. Knowing myself, I would have bet I would have been freaked out by it at the time if I'd been an older fan who witnessed such drastic shifts. Only thing I would say is, even during The Beatles there was some of this "different John Lennon" on display. John showed many of the traits you say you did not like AFTER the Beatles, while he was still with the Beatles. I'm sure there are Beatles songs by John you enjoy which go beyond the fluff of, say, PLEASE PLEASE ME that you might not have tolerated if they'd been solo John records.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 27, 2010 17:56:31 GMT -5
That's fine vectis and let me start by saying I'm obviously much younger than you as I did not get into the Beatles until the early 80's and then Paul at around 1986 just when Press to Play was coming out.
I am the opposite of you, Paul was my favourite Beatle for a long time, I liked that he was a nice guy and wrote great catchy songs, I liked that he had a stable family life with Linda and the kids. I discovered Wings and loved Wings and still do as much today. At the time I didn't like John very much, the whole John and Yoko thing really turned me off.
Then one day I bought Shaved Fish and I was surprised that every song was very good except Woman is the Nigger of the World, always skipped it. Then one day I bought JL/POB on cassette and I was blown away. That to me was just an amazing album. I was finishing school , I was going out alot , I was arguing with my parents alot, I had a falling out with my best friend over a girl and felt bad and this thing spoke to me like a Paul album never did.
I quickly bought everything I could on John, all the albums, books, the Goldman book, everything I could get my hands on and I loved how John was just a straight shooter, yes he could change his mind but he wasn't being devious about it he just said it like it was.
I loved all his albums and songs and I concede that they weren't all classics. He quickly became my favourite Beatle and although I still loved Paul, Paul to me was just about music and that's it whereas i felt John was above that, music was a tool for him to get whatever he wanted out there.
All three Beatles did admit that John changed after he left the Beatles but I don't see that as a bad thing, I think the Beatles stopped being the next big thing for him and he just wanted to be on his own with Yoko.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Nov 28, 2010 4:26:23 GMT -5
That immediately made me think of JL/POB. As much as I try, I can't warm up to that album. I give credit to John for not being afraid to explore those subjects, but the results leave me cold. Its not that nothing interests me on the album. Love is a fine song though the lyrics are a bit trite: Love is real, real is love. But it just never gets off the ground for me. Well, if you've ever had similar moments of pain, despair, hurt feelings and depression (and I've always naturally assumed we all did at one time or another, but I guess not?) I could see why something like POB would alienate the both of you. If they had been written around Beatles time and if Paul had perhaps had some kind of input on any of them, I'd bet you'd feel differently. A perfect example of this bias of yours is when you give GIMME SOME TRUTH a free pass because John and Paul worked on it during the Let It Be sessions! That one song is typical of something that's "pure Lennon politics" and something that is more Solo Lennon in feel and as "Un-Beatley as you can get"... but because it was slightly worked on during LIB, it's okay. Pffffffffftttttt. Sez you. I sez the lyrics make it. That's why John was great and Paulie was a cookie cutter craftsman churning out nuthin' much but silly love songs. It's why there are so many various fascinating documentaries about John, but practically little to say about the others (even after the Scorsese George doc comes along, what else will remain to be said after that? Will there be enough facets to George to warrant multiple docs on him?) Oh, please, RTG. Even though Elton's voice is more prominent on the track, I wouldn't even know it was Elton John's voice on there if I hadn't been told. I also don't think this song sounded like a typical Elton John song of that period at all. I doubt anyone hearing the song on the radio in 1974 thought "WOW! A new and great Elton John song!". But how come you can defend all of those times where Paulie got "different"? You're always writing posts explaining about how Paulie was "more avant garde than John," and all that stuff. Why do you not slam Paulie when he tried to "alienate Beatles fans" with uncharacteristic stuff like McCARTNEY, RAM, WILD LIFE, and other things? You respect Paul's GIVE IRELAND BACK TO THE IRISH... Why are all those okay with you, whereas if John had done them you'd be bashing them? Interesting how you let stuff like TORONTO and COLD TURKEY pass. Why is this? Is it because those efforts were done when John was still with The Beatles? How does the screaming and pained COLD TURKEY pass for you, whereas the similarly pained and personal material on POB does not? Get over The Beatles. What is this stuff that "John didn't get back to being Beatle John until...."?? Why is that so important to remain stagnant and never to grow? All four of The Beatles got fed up with being "The Old Lovable moptop". Even Paul for a time, early on. RTG, your posts do make me want to praise Lennon more than ever before and to reduce Paul down to silliness. Your crusades against Lennon and trying to emasculate him to some how "balance the scales" only causes the opposite effect from what your goal is. John wrote a lot of so called "silly' love songs after the Beatles. Double Fantasy is full songs about his love for Yoko and Sean. These are subjects Paul had written about years earlier. I don't think its justifiable to criticize either one of them for writing love songs or songs that express their love for family. John wrote love songs on the POB album and on the Imagine album. He wrote a couple of political songs on Imagine and POB but the thrust of it was either love songs or laments about his terrible childhood. There are two types of people. One that blames their adult problems on their parents and one that takes responsibility for their outlook and attitude on life and makes the best of it realizing that their parents had their limitations and did the best they knew how or were weak and succumbed to substance abuse issues. In the first case personal responsibility is not a real factor. That is the part of it that turns me off. There is nothing more off-putting than hearing a multi-millionaire rock star lament about how bad his life is and how fame is such a burden and how his parents are at fault when it is that life he has chosen . If you don't want to be famous don't become a rock star. Record your music and keep it for yourself if you need to. Don't sell it. Its really the height of hypocrisy. John knew the real story about his father's so called abandonment. In reality, his father returned to claim his son and was turned away by Julia's relatives. Its is they who did more to harm the child than Fred Lennon. The true story of John's "orphaned" childhood is at least an exaggeration and at most misleading. John's uncle, brother to Fred, has told the truth about this but it has yet to be widely written about correctly. Its an example where the myth has overtaken the facts. But it makes for a compelling story.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 28, 2010 6:53:30 GMT -5
John wrote a lot of so called "silly' love songs after the Beatles. Double Fantasy is full songs about his love for Yoko and Sean. These are subjects Paul had written about years earlier. I don't think its justifiable to criticize either one of them for writing love songs or songs that express their love for family. You're grasping at straws here. Of course there's nothing wrong with it, but to bring John's occasional love songs up is not the same thing as with Paul's consistency in writing almost nothing BUT love songs, is it? With Paul, that's always been his reputation - to write mostly catchy fluff. It has not been John's reputation. So please don't misconstrue what I'm saying. I think it's wonderful what John did with his love and family phase; but at least he did a lot else, too. There are two types of people. One who is open and honest, and one who puts on a front. I prefer the former, personally. And I think it's quite nice to be able to relate to a multi-millionaire having just as many emotional problems as some of us poor shlubs have. The idea that fame and money does not necessarily fix everything. But I don't know where you're getting this idea that John resented his fame and suddenly didn't want to be famous. Next thing you know someone will be claiming Paul's mother never really died.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Nov 28, 2010 21:52:51 GMT -5
I have always felt that John's solo career compared least favorably to what he did with the Beatles. I thought it was ridiculous that he got into the R&R Hall Of Fame as a solo artist before Paul. You'd have an easier time convincing me that George should have gotten in before John than you would convincing me that John deserved to get in before Paul. How you feel about John as a solo artist largely comes down to one's opinion of JL/POB. I think it is good from an artistic point of view, but not much more than average musically. Others consider it among the greatest albums ever made. I'm not among that group. All that said I still liked John and there were always some enjoyable songs on all the albums. He is certainly the most fascinating personality of all the Beatles. I really think John was primed for a rebirth musically at the time of his death. His songs on DOUBLE FANTASY and MILK AND HONEY combined easily make up his best solo work in my opinion. I think the would have gone on to produce more great music, but alas we will never truly know.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 29, 2010 0:19:12 GMT -5
While everyone is confessing here, I too need to come out of the closet. I'd like to say that sayne is the smartest person who has ever posted on this Message Board. His insights and mastery of facts and presentation of his cogent arguments puts everyone to shame - including me.
I bow down to you master of the message board post, a trend-setter bar none, a man whose convictions are his bond, a sophisticated man of the West. I am just a lowly man of the South in comparison. Someday we may meet again, when the stakes are even higher, and I will prevail but today I realize that you, sayne, are King of the Board!
|
|
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 Nov 29, 2010 3:59:07 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure - after careful self examination, and looking at all the evidence to the extent that I can no longer deny it - I'm pretty sure I'm not a John Lennon fan. It really hurts me to say that, because I continue to be a Beatles fan. But I was a fan of Beatle John and, as John himself said, Beatle John was a fiction. And when the real John Lennon arrived - or, rather, most of the various shifting aspects of the highly fluid real John Lennon - I pretty much didn't like a lot of them. Interesting post, Vectis. I'm pretty much in agreement with you, to be honest -- especially with regard to your more substantive point about the persona of John Lennon. Thinking about it, I suppose the JWL that I have idolised all these years is the humourous, contradictory, witty, warm, insecure, brilliantly creative, rockin' John of pre-1969 not the posturing, campaigning, bitter, dismissive, blatantly self-pitying, judgmental John of 69-72. All I would say, however, is that by 1980 we were very much seeing the return of the old John. His interviews with Playboy and Andy Peebles of the BBC couldn't contrast more vividly with his 1970 Rolling Stone tirade.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 29, 2010 5:49:24 GMT -5
My favourite John Lennon is 1964 John, I think he was so cool during that time and so into the whole Beatle phenomenon and the others idolised him at that point.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 29, 2010 8:01:37 GMT -5
I've had the weekend to mull over what i said and the responses. OK, I dressed it up a bit facetiously in order to take the sting out of it a bit - maybe for myself as much as anything else - but it is essentially true, and it's a weird thing to be facing after so many years of holding it at bay.
My "relationship" with John Lennon works on two levels, I think - what it has meant to me over the years, and what I feel about John as a person (as far as one can get to grips with someone who has only ever been an image on a screen, words on a page etc.). Taking the second one first: I feel sad about the childhood upsets (notwithstanding that John wasn't the only kid who ever came from a broken marriage, suffered a parental bereavement etc. they are still sadnesses). I recognise the constant searching for some sort of answer, and that he found it with Yoko. As someone who brought me a lot of happiness, I'm glad he found an answer and some peace of mind, especially towards the end of his life. The 1980 interviews give the impression that he was a man in a much gentler and happier frame of mind than he had ever been, and that's great (and particularly poignant, of course). I have a feeling that I would have liked the man he had matured into.
As regards the other side - well, I said it in the first post. The very things which other people seem to find his greatest virtues are the things which I find particularly off-putting.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 29, 2010 13:06:53 GMT -5
While everyone is confessing here, I too need to come out of the closet. I'd like to say that sayne is the smartest person who has ever posted on this Message Board. His insights and mastery of facts and presentation of his cogent arguments puts everyone to shame - including me. I bow down to you master of the message board post, a trend-setter bar none, a man whose convictions are his bond, a sophisticated man of the West. I am just a lowly man of the South in comparison. Someday we may meet again, when the stakes are even higher, and I will prevail but today I realize that you, sayne, are King of the Board! I agree!
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 29, 2010 16:17:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't say I have a love/hate thing towards John Lennon (and there's always a fine line there). Maybe its more of an attraction/repulsion thing. The guy's a fascinating, complex, brilliant, flawed person no doubt. He was certainly a hero and role model for much of my youth. I certainly have a different perspective on him now. Probably the one thing I have a hard time forgiving him for (whether he needs my forgiveness or not) is how he wrote all those songs glamourizing drugs when he knew he had an audience of impressionable young children who followed his every lead.
Thats just my opinion, worth no more no less.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 29, 2010 19:48:56 GMT -5
While everyone is confessing here, I too need to come out of the closet. I'd like to say that sayne is the smartest person who has ever posted on this Message Board. His insights and mastery of facts and presentation of his cogent arguments puts everyone to shame - including me. I bow down to you master of the message board post, a trend-setter bar none, a man whose convictions are his bond, a sophisticated man of the West. I am just a lowly man of the South in comparison. Someday we may meet again, when the stakes are even higher, and I will prevail but today I realize that you, sayne, are King of the Board! So should the rest of us less intelligent posters just shut up since our opinions and arguments are all put to shame?
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 29, 2010 22:09:39 GMT -5
While everyone is confessing here, I too need to come out of the closet. I'd like to say that sayne is the smartest person who has ever posted on this Message Board. His insights and mastery of facts and presentation of his cogent arguments puts everyone to shame - including me. I bow down to you master of the message board post, a trend-setter bar none, a man whose convictions are his bond, a sophisticated man of the West. I am just a lowly man of the South in comparison. Someday we may meet again, when the stakes are even higher, and I will prevail but today I realize that you, sayne, are King of the Board! I agree! ...and modest, too! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 30, 2010 0:37:25 GMT -5
I agree! ...and modest, too! ;D As Muhammad Ali said, "It ain't braggin' if it's true."
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 30, 2010 0:48:50 GMT -5
While everyone is confessing here, I too need to come out of the closet. I'd like to say that sayne is the smartest person who has ever posted on this Message Board. His insights and mastery of facts and presentation of his cogent arguments puts everyone to shame - including me. I bow down to you master of the message board post, a trend-setter bar none, a man whose convictions are his bond, a sophisticated man of the West. I am just a lowly man of the South in comparison. Someday we may meet again, when the stakes are even higher, and I will prevail but today I realize that you, sayne, are King of the Board! John, I thought you came out of the closet when you confessed your lust for Tony Hicks.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 30, 2010 0:50:29 GMT -5
A number of recent things have set me thinking, as a result of which I am about to say something which I have never confessed to a soul - in fact, it's only in the last day or so that I have acknowledged that it might be a possibility. And, having acknowledged that, I then find it staring me in the face, and I either admit it to myself or find a way of convincing myself that it's not true. Which I haven't been able to do. And, having faced it and admitted it, I might as well admit it to everyone else. I'm pretty sure - after careful self examination, and looking at all the evidence to the extent that I can no longer deny it - I'm pretty sure I'm not a John Lennon fan. It really hurts me to say that, because I continue to be a Beatles fan. But I was a fan of Beatle John and, as John himself said, Beatle John was a fiction. And when the real John Lennon arrived - or, rather, most of the various shifting aspects of the highly fluid real John Lennon - I pretty much didn't like a lot of them. I didn't dislike all of them - I always liked humorous John, warm John, sad John - but I never liked angry John, pretentious John, radical John, and quite a few of the facades he chose to dress himself up in during the 70s. And that carried over into his music. With the exception of some of the more sentimental Double Fantasy material and the odd track off Imagine, John's solo material not only never slipped into my heart the way his Beatles material did, it often positively alienated me. I loved him, and it broke a little part of my heart when he died, but I don't think I was a fan of him as a non-Beatle at all. I feel better now I've got that off my chest. Please don't judge me.... I don't judge you. I thought your post was insightful and articulate. I have often had similar thoughts about John.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 30, 2010 10:21:25 GMT -5
While everyone is confessing here, I too need to come out of the closet. I'd like to say that sayne is the smartest person who has ever posted on this Message Board. His insights and mastery of facts and presentation of his cogent arguments puts everyone to shame - including me. I bow down to you master of the message board post, a trend-setter bar none, a man whose convictions are his bond, a sophisticated man of the West. I am just a lowly man of the South in comparison. Someday we may meet again, when the stakes are even higher, and I will prevail but today I realize that you, sayne, are King of the Board! John, I thought you came out of the closet when you confessed your lust for Tony Hicks. I suffered a momentary setback. All will be better by January! My mancrush of Tony is emotional, not physical! ;D
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Nov 30, 2010 11:26:25 GMT -5
[quote Probably the one thing I have a hard time forgiving him for (whether he needs my forgiveness or not) is how he wrote all those songs glamourizing drugs when he knew he had an audience of impressionable young children who followed his every lead.
Thats just my opinion, worth no more no less.[/quote]
Like what? I know of no Beatles songs that "glorify" drugs. There are songs that describe experiences with drugs and have references to drugs, but I know of any that say, "you should take drugs". I'm a lifelong Beatles and rock and roll fan and I've never taken drugs. Two of my favorite songs are "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Heroin" by the Velvet Underground. Fascinating songs, but they don't tell the listener, "you should take drugs".
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 30, 2010 11:31:34 GMT -5
. . . I suffered a momentary setback. All will be better by January! . . . The chances of that happening are between 16 and 34% right now. Hope they improve for you. As for me, I'm all charged up.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 30, 2010 11:38:16 GMT -5
So should the rest of us less intelligent posters just shut up since our opinions and arguments are all put to shame? But, that would deprive the enlightened ones around here a good laugh.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 30, 2010 12:03:12 GMT -5
. . . I suffered a momentary setback. All will be better by January! . . . The chances of that happening are between 16 and 34% right now. Hope they improve for you. As for me, I'm all charged up. Want to pony up on those percentages, sayne? And I agree with scousette, vectis you have very articulately stated your views and I know I sometimes question my love of John's solo music other than with his first two solo albums that I always appreciate(and I know the first one is one that gives you pause).
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 30, 2010 17:42:24 GMT -5
Acebackwords wrote: Coachbk wrote: Like what? I know of no Beatles songs that "glorify" drugs. There are songs that describe experiences with drugs and have references to drugs, but I know of any that say, "you should take drugs". I'm a lifelong Beatles and rock and roll fan and I've never taken drugs. Two of my favorite songs are "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Heroin" by the Velvet Underground. Fascinating songs, but they don't tell the listener, "you should take drugs".[/quote] Acebackwords wrote: I'll give just one example (I list dozens more in my Acid Herods book, available on . In 1966, just two years after the Beatles had amassed millions of prepubescent fans, they released "Tomorrow Never Knows," the lyrics taken practically word for word from a pamphlet by Timothy Leary -- the greatest proseletyzer of LSD -- entitled "The Psychedelic Experience" which was designed as a how-to guide for taking an LSD trip. Thats certainly how Lennon used the pamphlet. And thats certainly how millions of his fans used his musical version of it.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 30, 2010 17:49:20 GMT -5
The Beatles were too sophisticated as songwriters to allow their songs to be pigeon-holed. The lyrics are usually vague and general enough to allow for multiple interpretations (or misinterpretations). Certainly, many, many Beatles fans (especially the young ones who were listening to those albums as they were actually released during the 60s) had little trouble interpreting an invitation to drug use in lines like:
"I'd love to turn you on . . " "Let me take you down cuz I'm going to . . " "Roll up for the Mystery Tour . . . " "Picture yourself on a boat on a river . . . " and of course "Turn off your mind relax and float downstream . . . "
etc
Read McCartney's bio, "Many Years From Now" for the Beatles own drug-addled interpretation of those lyrics.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Nov 30, 2010 23:56:40 GMT -5
And I'll still say that's a cop out. I'd venture to guess that anyone who used drugs and claims it was because of the Beatles (or any other pop/rock performer(s)) probably would have ended up trying them anyway. The Beatles (and the 60's as a whole) were largely about freedoms and choices. This means not only the freedom of choice to take drugs, but the freedom to not take them just because other people are. As a long haired college youth in the late 1970's, I believe I was more of a "radical" because I did not take drugs than I would have been if I did take drugs. To quote George Harrison: "Everyone has choice/When to and when not to raise their voice/It's you that decides"
|
|