|
Post by sayne on Jun 27, 2013 0:21:43 GMT -5
I doubt if any of you are TLC fans, but some of you anti-Paul, pro-John people better watch out in case Paul gets a new idea about how to rewrite history. TLCPretty cold.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 27, 2013 8:41:43 GMT -5
There's no anti-Paul people that I see, just people who don't want John forgotten!
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 27, 2013 10:08:57 GMT -5
John who?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 27, 2013 10:48:28 GMT -5
There's no anti-Paul people that I see, just people who don't want John forgotten! Sorry, left out the quotes around "anti-Paul." But, at the same time, there are people here who constantly rag on his voice, pan his TV appearances, criticize his kids, question his motives, dislike his albums, etc. It sometimes seems like they love Paul - the pre-1976 Paul.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 27, 2013 12:41:10 GMT -5
There's no anti-Paul people that I see, just people who don't want John forgotten! Sorry, left out the quotes around "anti-Paul." But, at the same time, there are people here who constantly rag on his voice, pan his TV appearances, criticize his kids, question his motives, dislike his albums, etc. It sometimes seems like they love Paul - the pre-1976 Paul. Hmm. Sounds strangely familiar but not me because I LOVE Chaos, Electric Argument and Memory Almost Full, his last albums of all original music. Let's just say I don't like what Paul has become these past several years. But hey, there are no problems, only solutions! Remember John Lennon 2013!
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 27, 2013 13:21:19 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but I have to admit I find the concept of John Lennon being forgetton to be vaguely absurd. Its true that most so-called celebrities are quickly forgotten. I once came across a celebrity gossip tabloid from the '40s -- the National Enquirer of its days. And I was shocked that I didn't recognize a single one of the "famous" people in the articles. And I'm a bit of a pop culture afficionado.
But the Beatles and John Lennon will surely transcend the level of mere fame and celebrity, and inhabit the deeper realm of legend. And Lennon will surely be recognized as the de facto leader of the Beatles. I can't imagine any kind of revisionist history altering that view.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 27, 2013 15:27:04 GMT -5
Fair enough Ace but what about John being marginalized within the Beatles if not then actually forgotten?
I will say part of the problem has been Yoko's management of the legacy as she likes to focus on the part of John's career that she was involved in so now John's legacy is all "Peace" and "Imagine." She doesn't like to focus on Beatle John, among the ultimate the Rock and Roll Gods or John Lennon the hot chart topper again in 1974 because she was either not around or was just be a spectator, i.e., the Rooftop Session.
Yeah, that "Saint John" stuff has diminished John's legacy in the long run by making him look soft. I am grateful John left us "Imagine" which is among the all time Rock anthems(and is not all sugar and spice) as that will keep him on the map but that bed-in "Peace" stuff of 1969 is not what his legacy should be built around.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 27, 2013 17:13:24 GMT -5
Well, I respectfully disagree, John. As much as i loathe PC liberal politics these days, John's Bed-in, Give Peace a Chance anthem, and collaborations with the likes of Jerry Rubin is one more example of how John's legacy transcends music and transformed him into an important historical figure.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 27, 2013 17:59:02 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but I have to admit I find the concept of John Lennon being forgetton to be vaguely absurd. I think that may be because even after I've elaborated on how I mean "forgotten" several times, you don't follow it. I'm not talking about John as a "historical figure".... I am referring to the fact that he's not here doing tours and making music now, he has been dead for 33 years, and newbies who are teen and college aged do not know what it's like to be living in a present-day modern world with a living and functioning John Lennon. He is just a memory... he is not releasing new albums, not jamming with Nirvana, not appearing on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE or playing live at their local stadiums. It is now a "Paul McCartney World". John Lennon is some guy who was in the BEatles and was as big as Paul way back in the 1960s -- but then Paul got big again with Wings in the 1970s, as John went into retirement, popped his head out in 1980 briefly, but was then assassinated -- all a long, long, long time ago. I don't mean to suggest that people will ever ask, "John Lennon?? Who was he and what did he do??" in the sense of not being a part of PAST HISTORY. I am pointing out the obvious fact that John is no longer part of today's current game. And if you happen to be a young 20-aged Beatles Fan, you have to rely on John's Beatles songs and some really stale old 1970's political slogans and outdated-sounding 1970s albums. I also mean that while John fades farther and farther in the past like George Washington, Paul is writing the Oratorio, playing The Grammys and The Olympics. It's natural for a 12-year-old kid who's just discovering The Beatles to bond more with Paul and his constant adventures and achievements than John ... and in the meantime, they are mistakingly getting an impression that "Paul McCartney Must Have Been The Mastermind Behind The Beatles". Agreed. But think of this thread as being: "Hey, Kids, Don't Forget About John Lennon Today, Too". Eventually all four Beatles will be gone, and the future generations who discover them will ONLY see them as relics... but today, it's All Paul.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 27, 2013 18:12:25 GMT -5
I understand your point, Joe. And i think I've responded to it by making the point that Johns legacy transcends music in a way that will dwarf Paul's legacy. But Paul's music will probably have a more enduring popularity.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 27, 2013 18:24:22 GMT -5
Personally i could care less if the kid's appreciate John's music. I don't proselytize my musical tastes. I'd rather the kids find a voice from their own generation. Plus, if people don't have the ears or the brains to appreciate John Lennon's enduring contribution to art and music they're probably not worth bothering with anyways.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 27, 2013 18:33:06 GMT -5
"Sole survivor, carrying the load, switches on his radio.
Take it away. I want to hear you play 'til the lights go down. Take it away. Don't you want to stay 'til there's no one else around." - Paul McCartney
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 27, 2013 18:38:39 GMT -5
Plus, out of the 8 billion people on the planet how many have gotten more acclaim than John and Paul? Very, very few. I'm not losing any sleep over John Lennon not getting enough acclaim.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 27, 2013 20:12:01 GMT -5
I also mean that while John fades farther and farther in the past like George Washington, Paul is writing the Oratorio, playing The Grammys and The Olympics. And getting knighted. A comedian on Craig Ferguson last night said (Jim McDonald), "My girlfriend told me now that Andrew Lloyd Weber is a knight, if the Queen is ever attacked, it is his responsibility to protect her. In my lifetime, the Queen has knighted Andrew Lloyd Weber, Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger and Elton John. If the Queen's attacked, she's toast".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 28, 2013 5:41:32 GMT -5
Personally i could care less if the kid's appreciate John's music. I don't proselytize my musical tastes. I'd rather the kids find a voice from their own generation. Those poor things today have no voices for their own generation. Who -- Kanye West or Justin Bieber?? It's not so much the ears or brains, as much as the "eyes", so to speak. What I mean is, John Lennon is easily invisible and overlooked today in the shadow of Paul. In order for people to hear John's music with their ears and appreciate it with their brains, they first have to know about it. (I mean also apart from John's Beatles work, which they are increasingly thinking was penned all by Paul!). C'mon, Ace -- help us put the 'Lennon' back in "Lennon and McCartney".
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 28, 2013 9:50:41 GMT -5
JoeK makes the valid point that kids today have the choice of actually watching John perform music on mostly grainy old film or deteriorating videotape with dodgy sound quality or watch Paul on dozens of high definition, perfect picture, perfect sound, broadcasts going back 15 to 20 years or more. Or better yet go see him live! Who are kids, who expect and demand such quality, going to pick?
That is not Paul's fault for sure but it is also not John's fault and while John may be "remembered," it is as this "pie-in-the-sky" figure and not as the awesome Rock and Roller John Lennon was. It is just like Mickey Mouse: EVERYONE can identify the image of Mickey Mouse but very few people of my age and younger can remember seeing many of his actual cartoons! I am 50 but I have in my life seen very few MM cartoons. Yet I have seen that cartoon character's image everywhere.
Kids love Mickey Mouse but they don't know why because his cartoons are old, the best in black and white, and rarely shown. Mickey Mouse is a brand name, an image.
I am afraid that John Lennon has become just a brand name, an image on t-shirts and posters but the kids or whoever aren't really playing his music in depth. As much as we can for a person who was murdered, I want John to become known as a Rock and Roll musician again and not some pie-in-the-sky figure known only for "Imagine"(as great as that song is). "Imagine" is just one piece of the great puzzle for John. POB, W&B and DF are all great stuff and there are things to love from MG and even STINYC.
The Beatles thing is a different problem and I absolutely believe John is being marginalized there by persons in Apple(yes Paul for one) and elsewhere who may feel they have scores to settle or the mere fact John has been gone for going on 33 years and can't produce new music, concerts, television shows, etc. AND cannot tell his side of the story anymore.
Remember John Lennon! Put "Lennon" back in Lennon/McCartney!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 28, 2013 9:55:15 GMT -5
. . . But the definition of religion is as follows: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. Religion (from O.French. religion "religious community," from Latin. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for God" and "obligation, the bond between man and God" is derived from the Latin religiô. Yes, it is true that people who believe in ONE all powerful creator are religious, but that does not mean that "religion" requires that. Any dictionary definition that seems to stress or place forward the concept of God is not academically accurate or useful. When studying history or anthropology, religion is defined as a belief in spirit beings - full stop. They do not need to be powerful, they don't need to be creators, they don't need to be governors, they don't even need to be "gods". They just need to be around. It is believed that over 200,000 years ago Neanderthals had religion because they buried their dead. As we move towards modern humans, we see evidence of more and more ritualistic burial practices or religious practices, if you will. To place forward God as the standard for religion discounts polytheistic or animistic beliefs as "real" or authentic religions.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 28, 2013 10:22:12 GMT -5
Here's a test for all of you to do. I think it will put the John vs Paul being remembered into a different perspective. Ask as many kids as you can (of all ages under 18 and of as many different ethnic groups) if they know the Beatles or have heard of them. My guess is that most of them will say "yes".
Of those who say yes, ask them to NAME the Beatles (first and last name). I think the majority of those asked will NOT be able to name all four by first and last name. You will find that there will be a ranking of the individuals from most named to least named. (I bet John is first and George is last) You will find that there will be some Beatles that only the first name can be remembered. That will also give a ranking. As an option for those who know NO last names, then you can have them give the first names only. This will give you a ranking, too.
There was a time when nearly everyone in the Western world knew the Beatles AND knew who each Beatle was. But not today. Not scientific, but I think the findings will show that none of the individual Beatles will be remembered as much as the "Beatles". So the John vs Paul thing is the wrong battle. "John Lennon: Let's Not Forget Him!" perhaps should be changed to "John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ringo Starr: Let's not forget them!"
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 28, 2013 13:09:01 GMT -5
I think that may be because even after I've elaborated on how I mean "forgotten" several times, you don't follow it. I'm not talking about Beatles as a "historical figure".... I am referring to the fact that they're not here doing tours and making music now, they have been broken up for 43 years, and newbies who are teen and college aged do not know what it's like to be living in a present-day modern world with a living and functioning Beatles. They are just a memory... they are not releasing new albums, not jamming with Nirvana, not appearing on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE or playing live at their local stadiums. It is now a "Rolling Stones World". The Beatles aresome band who existed way back in the 1960s -- -- all a long, long, long time ago.
I don't mean to suggest that people will ever ask, "Beatles?? Who were they and what did they do??" in the sense of not being a part of PAST HISTORY. I am pointing out the obvious fact that the Beatles are no longer part of today's current game.
I also mean that while the Beatles fade farther and farther in the past like George Washington, The Rolling Stones are playing The Grammys and The Super Bowl. Going by sayne's last statement, i took some liberty with an earlier JoeK quote. Joe this is not a critique- just a different perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 28, 2013 14:55:28 GMT -5
I think that may be because even after I've elaborated on how I mean "forgotten" several times, you don't follow it. I'm not talking about Beatles as a "historical figure".... I am referring to the fact that they're not here doing tours and making music now, they have been broken up for 43 years, and newbies who are teen and college aged do not know what it's like to be living in a present-day modern world with a living and functioning Beatles. They are just a memory... they are not releasing new albums, not jamming with Nirvana, not appearing on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE or playing live at their local stadiums. It is now a " Rolling Stones World". The Beatles aresome band who existed way back in the 1960s -- -- all a long, long, long time ago. I don't mean to suggest that people will ever ask, " Beatles?? Who were they and what did they do??" in the sense of not being a part of PAST HISTORY. I am pointing out the obvious fact that the Beatles are no longer part of today's current game. I also mean that while the Beatles fade farther and farther in the past like George Washington, The Rolling Stones are playing The Grammys and The Super Bowl. Going by sayne's last statement, i took some liberty with an earlier JoeK quote. Joe this is not a critique- just a different perspective. No problem Mike... Except that the intent behind this thread by me was merely to address that Yes, Paul used to live in John's shadow after Lennon's death and that wasn't right -- but now it's reversed and it's currently John living in Paul's shadow, and that isn't right either. Kind of like reverse discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 28, 2013 23:45:25 GMT -5
But Joe correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say in several posts that you were concerned that future generations would forget or minimize Johns contribution to the Beatles?? Then when i respond to that point you act like I'm erecting phantom arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 29, 2013 6:00:24 GMT -5
But Joe correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say in several posts that you were concerned that future generations would forget or minimize Johns contribution to the Beatles?? Then when i respond to that point you act like I'm erecting phantom arguments. I see it happening today where newer fans think it's all Paul, so in that regard I was concerned that this might happen in the future. However, the more this thread progresses the more I'm thinking that it's a temporary thing now and once both John and Paul have been gone for some time, it will level off as it used to be. Right now, I'm sorry, but I see way too many young fans on YouTube videos and at conventions thinking "Paul Was The Beatles".
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 29, 2013 11:55:43 GMT -5
But Joe correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say in several posts that you were concerned that future generations would forget or minimize Johns contribution to the Beatles?? Then when i respond to that point you act like I'm erecting phantom arguments. I see it happening today where newer fans think it's all Paul, so in that regard I was concerned that this might happen in the future. However, the more this thread progresses the more I'm thinking that it's a temporary thing now and once both John and Paul have been gone for some time, it will level off as it used to be. Right now, I'm sorry, but I see way too many young fans on YouTube videos and at conventions thinking "Paul Was The Beatles". I was talking to my wife yesterday and told her about the discussion going on here and often about John vs Paul. I told her that some people here think Paul is trying to (at best) balance the importance of him and John or (at worst) trying to rewrite history to suggest that he was the Beatles. Now, she likes the Beatles as a casual listener, prefers John 'cause she is not so much into Paul's pop tendancies, but she certainly does not follow the Beatles as we all do. Anyway, when I told her about the idea of Paul trying to present a revisionist history of his role vs John's she said, "No duh." It was interesting that even SHE interpreted Paul's actions as being a bit self-serving and she only sees Paul when he's on TV or something.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 29, 2013 12:32:36 GMT -5
Are you kidding? Go up as an adult and actually talk to children -- in THIS current PC world!?? That's funny. I guess as long as you don't start off the conversation with ,"Hello, little girl, heh heh, what's your name? Heh, heh. Is your mommy around? No? Heh Heh, can I buy you an ice cream? Heh heh" you'll be okay - "heh heh".
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jun 29, 2013 13:31:15 GMT -5
LOL! Well, I always imagine posters here to look like their Avatar photo(except scousette because she has Tony Hicks, lead guitarist of The Hollies). That's not scousette in her avatar? I always thought that was a photo of her from the '70s. Boy is my face red. (Well, it's white and orangy yellow.) I was having gay thoughts and didn't even know it. Speaking of which, if you search Tony Hicks in images... there's a picture or two that reassured me I wasn't gay. LMAO! It's OK if you have gay thoughts about Tony Hicks. Some guy on YouTube said "He's the prettiest man I've ever seen!"
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 29, 2013 15:05:30 GMT -5
Speaking of which, can anybody explain to me in simple terms how I can post an avatar (I'm somewhat computer illiterate). I'm getting tired of looking at my egghead avatar. PS: I don't have my own computer, I use public library computers with limited programming, so that might limit things.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jun 29, 2013 16:17:12 GMT -5
Speaking of which, can anybody explain to me in simple terms how I can post an avatar (I'm somewhat computer illiterate). I'm getting tired of looking at my egghead avatar. PS: I don't have my own computer, I use public library computers with limited programming, so that might limit things. ace-Let me give this a shot. First, search the internet for an image you want to use for your avatar. When you find an image you like, right click on it to get the URL for the pic. Make sure it has a .jpg tag at the end to make things simple. Copy the URL for the pic. Now, go to this board. Click on "Profile" on the top of the page. Click on "Edit Profile" on the right. Avatar settings will be on the next screen you see. Where you see Choose How Your Avatar Will Display, Click on "Use Only the Uploaded/Link" Move over to the right to "Uploaded/Linked". Click Upload/Link. Paste the URL in "OR LINK an Image from the Internet" field. Click "Link Image" The image should appear in the space on the left of the screen. "This is what other users currently see as your avatar!" I know, lots of steps.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 29, 2013 18:04:10 GMT -5
Thanks for the tip, Scousette! I'll give it a try when i go to the library tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jun 30, 2013 12:26:46 GMT -5
LMAO! It's OK if you have gay thoughts about Tony Hicks. Some guy on YouTube said "He's the prettiest man I've ever seen!" Perhaps he is a pretty man, but not a very pretty woman! I must say, I too thought this was an early photo of scousette from the 60s or 70s! No offense, scousette, and I mean this in a complimentary fashion -- but I am relieved to know that this is NOT a photo of you! LOL I see many here need to take a Tony Hicks 101 course! Thanks for the compliment, Joe. I look nothing like Tony Hicks.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jun 30, 2013 13:50:23 GMT -5
Not me. I thought that was one cute, stylin' chick. Now that i find out its a dude I'm beginning to question my manhood. Whats left of it.
|
|