|
Post by John S. Damm on May 18, 2012 13:06:05 GMT -5
Imagine all the people living for today. Imagine all the people living life in peace. Imagine all the people sharing all the world. I take that message from the song John. I don't think anyone's being "slammed". "Slammed" was too hard a description. John wasn't slamming anyone, I agree. I rushed that. He was saying imagine no God whatsoever and no Satan too. None whatsover. I like the sentiment of peace and cooperation in the song and actually Andy my post was more in response to this recent trend of wanting to ascribe religious undertones to "Imagine" by adding such(like the rapper did a few months ago) or ignoring certain lyrics in the song like done last night on AI. "Imagine" is atheist, that's all I was saying but John is just asking us to imagine it for a purpose(so we don't fight over gods) so I don't get all uptight over it like they still do in the Bible-Belt of the U.S. John was inviting us to chuck spiritual beliefs out the window but yeah, he wasn't slamming anyone because then he'd be guilty of what he was attributing to religion and government and wealth.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 18, 2012 13:18:06 GMT -5
That's getting there. The world is full of people missing the point. We don't want one more to add to the list.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 18, 2012 15:06:44 GMT -5
"Imagine" shouldn't be made into something it is not and it is an anthem of atheism and to say it is not is changing it. The first verse is crystal clear although John muddies it by adding "and no religion too" later in the song which is a knock limited to the organized belief in spiritual deities.. That's a pretty nice theory. However, John clarified what he meant in the 1980 RKO interview, and he said "Not 'Imagine No God' "... As we know, John changed his views on things and I think a good example of where he did this was when it came to the concept of God. I know there were times he flat out said he did not believe, but this did not seem to be his position late in his life. I'll join your feelings on this. I feel as you do; I believe in Heaven too. But as you say, the song is just a "pretend" and "what if" scenario, so that's why I don't get bent about it too. The sentiment is generally something positive and full of hope and peace.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 22, 2012 13:36:11 GMT -5
In the recent IN MY LIFE discussion, we have RTP again trying to turn IN MY LIFE into Paul's song, or at least half of it. I'm telling you, John is getting more and more reduced as the decades go on. It used to be that Paul was worried because everyone held Lennon up to be "The #1 Chief Beatle", but now there doesn't seem to be a single song anywhere that John truly wrote. Paul wrote everything, or at least half of everything. We really need to try and restore John Lennon's reputation and bring him up to Paul's equal. These days it's all about "Paul McCartney Was The Beatles". Are you sitting down. Ok here it goes. You sound like ME!
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 22, 2012 13:59:38 GMT -5
Imagine all the people living for today. Imagine all the people living life in peace. Imagine all the people sharing all the world. I take that message from the song John. I don't think anyone's being "slammed". "Slammed" was too hard a description. John wasn't slamming anyone, I agree. I rushed that. He was saying imagine no God whatsoever and no Satan too. None whatsover. I like the sentiment of peace and cooperation in the song and actually Andy my post was more in response to this recent trend of wanting to ascribe religious undertones to "Imagine" by adding such(like the rapper did a few months ago) or ignoring certain lyrics in the song like done last night on AI. "Imagine" is atheist, that's all I was saying but John is just asking us to imagine it for a purpose(so we don't fight over gods) so I don't get all uptight over it like they still do in the Bible-Belt of the U.S. John was inviting us to chuck spiritual beliefs out the window but yeah, he wasn't slamming anyone because then he'd be guilty of what he was attributing to religion and government and wealth. Its athiest and communist. We won't own anything ourselves, no land, no property. Everything is shared equally. All outcomes are equal and if they aren't the one world government will make it allright. Its sickening really. The idea of people not having property rights goes against man's nature and it ultimately distructive. Didn't the failure of the Soviet Union set an example? You don't have to wait that long in history. The pilgrims are a good early example of why the best system of government is to take advantage of man's strengths and faults. Upon their arrival in the new land in 1621, the Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally. The result was near starvation. Let's go the the primary source: "They began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length … the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves…. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land … for that end, only for present use…. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's … that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing…. For this community … was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong … had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was lazy who did not do a quarter the other did; this was thought injustice…. Upon … all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought … one as good as another, and so did work diminish … the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst men…. Let none object this is men's corruption … all men have this corruption in them…." (William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, New York: Knopf, pp. 120–21.) And if they will not do a full day's work, then they cannot expect to have that which the hard workers have. They must be satisfied with less that that. If they are unable, physically or mentally, due to age or infirmary, then they will be provided for. But man's worst tendancy to get accustomed to having everything given to him no matter whether he has earned it is an injustice to those who work hard. It is fundamentally unfair and will fail every time. This utopian vison of John's is an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 22, 2012 14:12:25 GMT -5
Its athiest and communist. We won't own anything ourselves, no land, no property. Everything is shared equally. All outcomes are equal and if they aren't the one world government will make it allright. Its sickening really. Gee. Life's so much simpler and non-intrusive when all you sing is "Ob La Di Ob La Da". It makes more sense than Imagine There's No Nation. Its the story of life: Desmond has a barrow (food stand) in the market place. Molly is the singer in a band. Desmond says to Molly "Girl, I like your face". And Molly says this as she takes him by the hand. Desmond takes a trolley to the jewelry store. Buys a twenty carat golden ring. Takes it back to Molly waiting at the door. And as he gives it to her she begins to sing. In a couple of years they have built a home sweet home, With a couple of kids running in the yard, Of Desmond and Molly Jones. Happy ever after in the market place. Desmond lets the children lend a hand. Molly stays at home and does her pretty face. And in the evening she's a singer with the band. And life goes on...
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 22, 2012 14:20:14 GMT -5
You know the most equal society in the world--equal outcome, equal income: North Korea.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 22, 2012 14:25:03 GMT -5
We don't own anything though.
We're renting it for the short time we're here.
I see it being about peace and love myself.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 22, 2012 14:55:29 GMT -5
You know, RTP, with the things you're saying I'd bet you would have been at the front of the line to have John deported from the U.S. Not at all. I was glad John got his green card in 1976. When he says imagine there's no countries, maybe he doesn't even realize the implications of that. Do you think if we all live in one country (no border disputes) that everything would be fine? Also, when you say no countries, no borders, that is a one world governement. That is not the government we have. We are sovereign. We can govern ourself as we see fit. That is called freedom --freedom of ideas. If John were in the Soviet Union during the late 1960s and early 1970s, he might not have made it to 1980. In this country we acknowledge God given rights. With the absence of God, government becomes the God and tries to usurp God as the source of our rights. Our rights are birthrights, guaranteed not by any man or government, but given to us by virtue of being alive, endowed by our creator. I think I may have been rushed a bit through the endowment part, but I can't complain.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 22, 2012 14:59:51 GMT -5
When he says imagine there's no countries, maybe he doesn't even realize the implications of that. Do you think if we all live in one country (no border disputes) that everything would be fine? Also, when you say no countries, no borders, that is a one world governement. That is not the government we have. We are sovereign. We can govern ourself as we see fit. That is called freedom --freedom of ideas. If John were in the Soviet Union during the late 1960s and early 1970s, he might not have made it to 1980. In this country we acknowledge the God given rights. With the absence of God, government becomes the God and tries to say usurp God as the source of your rights. Our rights are birthrights, guaranteed not by any man or government, but given to us by virtue of being given life, endowed by our creator. I think if anything, IMAGINE was trying to get more to the image of what the Creator intended for everyone. (I mean, if you believe in a creator). But whatever the case, you're way over-thinking a plea for all mankind to live together in peace and harmony. And that is all it will ever be in reality -- Imagination.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 22, 2012 15:02:48 GMT -5
When he says imagine there's no countries, maybe he doesn't even realize the implications of that. Do you think if we all live in one country (no border disputes) that everything would be fine? Also, when you say no countries, no borders, that is a one world governement. That is not the government we have. We are sovereign. We can govern ourself as we see fit. That is called freedom --freedom of ideas. If John were in the Soviet Union during the late 1960s and early 1970s, he might not have made it to 1980. In this country we acknowledge the God given rights. With the absence of God, government becomes the God and tries to say usurp God as the source of your rights. Our rights are birthrights, guaranteed not by any man or government, but given to us by virtue of being given life, endowed by our creator. I think if anything, IMAGINE was trying to get more to the image of what the Creator intended for everyone. But whatever the case, you're way over-thinking a plea for all mankind to live together in peace and harmony. And that is all it will ever be in reality -- Imagination. Hear Hear Joe!
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 22, 2012 15:03:13 GMT -5
I hear ya, ReturnToGoldman. I'm gonna ignore that because I can.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 22, 2012 15:09:42 GMT -5
When he says imagine there's no countries, maybe he doesn't even realize the implications of that. Do you think if we all live in one country (no border disputes) that everything would be fine? Also, when you say no countries, no borders, that is a one world governement. That is not the government we have. We are sovereign. We can govern ourself as we see fit. That is called freedom --freedom of ideas. If John were in the Soviet Union during the late 1960s and early 1970s, he might not have made it to 1980. In this country we acknowledge the God given rights. With the absence of God, government becomes the God and tries to say usurp God as the source of your rights. Our rights are birthrights, guaranteed not by any man or government, but given to us by virtue of being given life, endowed by our creator. I think if anything, IMAGINE was trying to get more to the image of what the Creator intended for everyone. (I mean, if you believe in a creator). That sounds like religion to me. Maybe John explained this better later, but it sounds like a contradiction. John was among those who had already written pleas for man to live in peace and harmony (All You Need Is Love, Give Peace A Chance, I'd Like to Give the World A Coke). Imagine seems to go out on a limb to be controversial.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 22, 2012 15:10:54 GMT -5
Belief in God isn't just religion though is it?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 22, 2012 15:16:50 GMT -5
That sounds like religion to me. Maybe John explained this better later, but it sounds like a contradiction. You're the guy who brought up "God" and "creator". So I'm just saying that if anything, the sentiment of this song is right in line with the idea that any good creator might approve of. It's you who seems to be contradicting himself. I don't believe John wrote this to stir anyone up. Not this time, at any rate.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 22, 2012 15:25:19 GMT -5
Belief in God isn't just religion though is it? Belief in God is a fundamental tennant of religion. You may be thinking of the idea that one can believe in God without relating it to an organized religion. 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.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 22, 2012 15:39:41 GMT -5
Belief in God isn't just religion though is it? You may be thinking of the idea that one can believe in God without relating it to an organized religion. Yep. Sums it up.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on May 22, 2012 15:43:28 GMT -5
This has to be the most ironically titled thread of all time. John who? I don't think the dude will be forgotten any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 22, 2012 16:44:24 GMT -5
This has to be the most ironically titled thread of all time. John who? I don't think the dude will be forgotten any time soon. What I meant by the title is that after years of John being (wrongly) considered "the one who was the The Beatles" after being glorified in death, we have reached a point where I feel John has been gone so long that he's not as much "up there" to newbies as Paul now is. A newbie Beatles fan in 1981 may have thought "it was all about John". But that's changed today in 2012 where a newbie may get the impression "it was all about Paul". Neither attitude is accurate, but two wrongs don't make a right. Think about it. John hasn't had a new song in 32 years and has not toured. His solo music is old dated "70s stuff". You don't see him popping up on Howard Stern, Saturday Night Live, or the Grammys as kids see paul today.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 22, 2012 16:49:29 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. John said in the 1980 RKO interview -- the very day he died -- that "Imagine No Religion" in the song did not mean "Imagine No God". It may get boring to read this again and again, but it's not half as annoying as my having to do it repeatedly because nobody's registering it. You think John or anyone else who write songs analyzes Webster's definitions in everything they write?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 22, 2012 17:08:02 GMT -5
Here's a thought (which might merit a thread of its own?) - what would a newbie make of Lennon solely on the basis of his solo career?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 22, 2012 17:14:40 GMT -5
Here's a thought (which might merit a thread of its own?) - what would a newbie make of Lennon solely on the basis of his solo career? Who knows? It would vary from person to person. I maintain that John Lennon's very personal and moving albums like PLASTIC ONO BAND and IMAGINE speak to some teenagers who are searching and experiencing their own growing pains. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Lennon's solo work at its best spoke to young people much more than LET 'EM IN did.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on May 22, 2012 17:43:37 GMT -5
Think about it. John hasn't had a new song in 32 years and has not toured. His solo music is old dated "70s stuff". You don't see him popping up on Howard Stern, Saturday Night Live, or the Grammys as kids see paul today. One interesting thing, though. 32 years after his death the books ABOUT John Lennon are still flooding the market. Probably moreso than the other three Beatles combined.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on May 22, 2012 21:53:58 GMT -5
Here's a thought (which might merit a thread of its own?) - what would a newbie make of Lennon solely on the basis of his solo career? Who knows? It would vary from person to person. I maintain that John Lennon's very personal and moving albums like PLASTIC ONO BAND and IMAGINE speak to some teenagers who are searching and experiencing their own growing pains. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Lennon's solo work at its best spoke to young people much more than LET 'EM IN did. It's hard to know how a noob might see Lennon's career without The Beatles. Myself, I discovered the group first, listened to the whole discography and quickly got my hands on both John and Paul's entire solo discographies as well (as of 2010). I was just about to turn twenty so still a teenager so I guess my opinion is valid here. Anyway, personally, I found both Plastic Ono Band and Imagine to be astounding albums (with one or two songs a bit dull musically for my tastes), full of personal introspection, pain, love, the whole shebang. I'm not exactly and never have been an 'angsty trying to find myself and rebel' type of person so a lot of that attitude didn't inspire or impress me (and some of it honestly struck me as slightly immature) but as a personal and artistic statement I was mightily impressed. HOWEVER, it certainly didn't 'speak to me' more than Paul's music did. Certainly, on first listen I found a number of Paul's songs a tad vapid and empty lyrically in terms of depth and some of the cheesiness I found, at first, off-putting. Musically, however, I immediately gravitated towards Paul's music more and found myself listening to his music more than John's. Besides the two afore-mentioned albums of John's and a number of other isolated songs, I really couldn't get into his music that much, to be perfectly honest. I still don't listen to albums like Pipes of Peace much either but for some reason I always found Paul's lowest points easier to listen to than John's even though I think there were more of them. Lyrically, I'd always heard John was the brilliant wordsmith (true) whilst Paul was just an empty headed inane writer of fluffy love songs. So, I was probably more impressed with what I discovered - that is, some profoundly moving love songs to his family/wife, some heartrending songs (both musically and/or lyrically) of regret and loss and joyous celebratory songs of life and love and some fun ditties with musical variety. Sure, both of the men had plenty of duff songs alongside the great but, perfectly honestly, Paul's songs 'spoke' to me more than John's. I still find a song like Somedays or Calico Skies more moving than Mother even though I know I probably shouldn't. Maybe it's because Paul generalises and universalises his songs more so I don't find myself distanced by how personal they are? Maybe it's because Paul's less likely to display his entire, whole emotional side in real life interviews so when he does in music I'm more moved? I don't know if it was also affected by the concurrent research I was doing on them, reading about their lives and watching and listening to their interviews, but I honestly always have and still do find Paul the more interesting character - the separation between his art and his person, and the way he has dealt with his fame, life, loves and losses just struck me as more intriguing than how John did even though I find him fascinating as well, even if I sometimes find myself varying between wanting to hug him forever or tell him to grow up! And yes, John's solo work at its best spoke to me more than Paul's 'Let 'em In' did BUT Paul's solo work at its best spoke to me more than John's 'Whatever Gets You Thru the Night' did, conversely. And this is all in my own little (somewhat) humble opinion as a still-youngish-person and nearly-newbie, naturally.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 23, 2012 3:33:30 GMT -5
Thoughtful as ever, Nicole - thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 23, 2012 5:56:16 GMT -5
I'm not exactly and never have been an 'angsty trying to find myself and rebel' type of person so a lot of that attitude didn't inspire or impress me (and some of it honestly struck me as slightly immature) but as a personal and artistic statement I was mightily impressed. HOWEVER, it certainly didn't 'speak to me' more than Paul's music did. And so then it's exactly as I said -- it varies from person to person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 7:54:50 GMT -5
I like John, at this point in time though i listen to his music the least.
He was the one in the Beatles and after who had the biggest extremes in persona and i think that comes across in the diversity of his music...
He has his place in music history.
Most young people seem to go for what's current, not what was and that has to affect the way these muso's from yesteryear are viewed.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on May 23, 2012 9:15:39 GMT -5
Most young people seem to go for what's current, not what was and that has to affect the way these muso's from yesteryear are viewed. Mmm, I would say that amongst the young people I socialise with (not many - as me being on this forum and others besides may indicate... ) John Lennon is known more as an 'icon' than an actual musician. I would venture to say that my friends (around ages 18-midtwenties) would recognise his post-Beatles image (NY, glasses, with Yoko) more than him as a Beatle and would probably know Imagine, recognise Happy Xmas & Give Peace a Chance, and possibly one or two others varying on the person. I doubt any of them has listened to any of his solo albums in their entirety (though the majority aren't familiar with more than a couple of Beatles songs, either...) though most know the name and image. The majority of young people I know would be even less likely to recognise an image or song of Paul's, though, if that comforts anyone. The only reason any of my friends know anything of and about any of The Beatles (and most other 60s/70s artists) at this stage, to be honest, is because I insist on irritating them by banging on about old musicians and albums I like, JPG&R chief amongst them. Whoops. I know there are plenty, plenty, plenty of young people who do know and adore older music but certainly, the teenagers and young adults I know are much more interested in what's currently in the charts. I sometimes get laughed at by a few of them when wearing a Stones shirt, for example, because the image they know of them from late night talk shows and the media is of old dinosaurs rocking out looking embarrassing on stage. So, certainly, what the older musicians are doing now, the availability and knowledge of their back catalogue, the media representation of them, whether they're dead/alive, and what their music is like in terms of stylistic and musical similarities to what is currently popular definitely all affects how they're viewed.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 23, 2012 13:02:01 GMT -5
Most young people seem to go for what's current, not what was and that has to affect the way these muso's from yesteryear are viewed. Mmm, I would say that amongst the young people I socialise with (not many - as me being on this forum and others besides may indicate... ) John Lennon is known more as an 'icon' than an actual musician. I would venture to say that my friends (around ages 18-midtwenties) would recognise his post-Beatles image (NY, glasses, with Yoko) more than him as a Beatle and would probably know Imagine, recognise Happy Xmas & Give Peace a Chance, and possibly one or two others varying on the person. I doubt any of them has listened to any of his solo albums in their entirety (though the majority aren't familiar with more than a couple of Beatles songs, either...) though most know the name and image. The majority of young people I know would be even less likely to recognise an image or song of Paul's, though, if that comforts anyone. The only reason any of my friends know anything of and about any of The Beatles (and most other 60s/70s artists) at this stage, to be honest, is because I insist on irritating them by banging on about old musicians and albums I like, JPG&R chief amongst them. Whoops. I know there are plenty, plenty, plenty of young people who do know and adore older music but certainly, the teenagers and young adults I know are much more interested in what's currently in the charts. I sometimes get laughed at by a few of them when wearing a Stones shirt, for example, because the image they know of them from late night talk shows and the media is of old dinosaurs rocking out looking embarrassing on stage. So, certainly, what the older musicians are doing now, the availability and knowledge of their back catalogue, the media representation of them, whether they're dead/alive, and what their music is like in terms of stylistic and musical similarities to what is currently popular definitely all affects how they're viewed. It's a natural order of things I think. Get into new music now and progress backwards in your own time. Keep pointing out to your friends where the good stuff comes from when you can. That includes all forms of music. It's there waiting for them. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 23, 2012 15:05:01 GMT -5
I'm with you Nichole. Paul is a fascinating character. He among all the biggest rock stars has maintained a good head on his shoulders and his feet on the ground. He never got mixed up heavily in drugs, he raised a solid family, didn't go crazy with material things-money, cars, homes, loved one woman for 30 years until her death and still managed to have a career that any musician would envy. He didn't have it easy. Despite his mother's early death, John's death, Linda's and George's death, he has maintained his sanity and still treats the fans with respect and will give autographs most times. You don't find many like him. Look at Mick and Keith. I am sure they have regrets about bad, self indulgent, dangerous and juvenile behavior. If they don't they should. Paul, on the other hand, likely does not.
|
|