Happy Birthday John Lennon

[ToadBrother]

If that was the case, as with most people, his birthday and memory would not be a circus more that looks more like a saints day than the birthday of a celebrity. It's just that, like Kennedy, Monroe, and a host of others, death cleanses the past the way a baptism never could, and they become somewhat deified in the eyes of the gullible twits who pour adulation on their idols sanctified and sanitized lives.

Oh come on. Lennon's reputation had taken a beating, particularly after the Lost Weekend. Much of what we know about his abuse of women, his substance abuse, and all the nasty things we did comes from his own words. The guy pretty much spent ten years trying to demythologize himself. He admitted the hypocrisy of being a millionaire and singing about giving up all possessions. He admitted he beat his women. He admitted he was a shitty father to his first son. He even admitted that the whole Sometime In New York City period, when he was buddy-buddy with guys like Abby Hoffman was a low point in his career, that in nearly "killed my art", as he put it.

Lennon was no Bono, running around like Jesus Christ himself. He knew he was a bastard and cheerfully admitted it. The fact still remains that his name is stamped on a pretty impressive musical canon, that whatever his flaws, a man who could write something as chillingly brilliant as A Day In The Life clearly wasn't an ungifted man.

[ToadBrother]

It was a chain of circumstances and unresolved emotional issues that lead Lennon to his death..If he was not such a mother f**ker..following his surrogate mummy from Japan around New York he would never have been in the wrong place at the wrong time..It was his utter insecurity and fixation on a mummy figure that got him killed - If he behaved like a MAN - he would be alive today.

No, it was a maniac with a .38 revolver that killed him. Chapman had his own mythology, though it turns out now he was in fact considering other celebrities as well. All the nonsense about little voices in his head was a bunch of garbage so far as I can tell. He wanted to be famous, and because he was basically a loser, he figured the only way to get his name in lights was to knock off someone who was already in the big time. I guess it worked, if you're of the school that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Lennon can certainly be taken to task for the lax security, but he had been living in New York City on and off for eight years (and steadily for the five after he and Yoko got back together), without any trouble. The whole body-guard business around stars really took off after his murder, mainly because a lot of famous and rich folk suddenly realized that they were incredibly vulnerable to lunatics.

[M.Dancer]

Oh come on. Lennon's reputation had taken a beating, particularly after the Lost Weekend. Much of what we know about his abuse of women, his substance abuse, and all the nasty things we did comes from his own words. The guy pretty much spent ten years trying to demythologize himself. He admitted the hypocrisy of being a millionaire and singing about giving up all possessions. He admitted he beat his women. He admitted he was a shitty father to his first son. He even admitted that the whole Sometime In New York City period, when he was buddy-buddy with guys like Abby Hoffman was a low point in his career, that in nearly "killed my art", as he put it.

Lennon was no Bono, running around like Jesus Christ himself. He knew he was a bastard and cheerfully admitted it. The fact still remains that his name is stamped on a pretty impressive musical canon, that whatever his flaws, a man who could write something as chillingly brilliant as A Day In The Life clearly wasn't an ungifted man.

No where am I suggesting his current status is his creation...it that of his fans, most of whom are too young to remember what he really was.

Now if we want to talk about celebrities who foster there elevation to sainthood, yes there's a long list

[Michael Hardner]

As far as the Contras...fight fire with fire....is there a marxist dictatorship in Nicarauga anymore?

Are they dropping gas bombs on villages ?

[ToadBrother]

No where am I suggesting his current status is his creation...it that of his fans, most of whom are too young to remember what he really was.

It is unfortunate that the myth has overtaken the man, because the myth is rather boring, whereas Lennon himself was a complicated guy. I think people have, since the 1960s, viewed him as a spokesman, whereas Paul McCartney was just the guy who wrote cute songs. Paul himself has bristled under that for years, and has complained that everything John did is now considered brilliant beyond compare, whereas his much larger body of work (naturally, of course, the guy has been consistently recording ever since the Beatles' split, while John had, at best a six year career; from 1969-75 and then in 1980. John's solo stuff was a really mixed bag, the first couple of albums quite good in their own way, but after that it just sort of fell off, and frankly I find the stuff he wrote before he was killed to be pedestrian pap, every bit as bad as Paul's "granny" songs. I know Paul also hates it that John gets labeled as the great experimenter, when Paul was just as much into the avante garde scene, playing around musique concrete and introducing new instruments into the pop canon.

Still, I'm a big Beatles fan. It's hard to think of a more beautifully recorded album than Abbey Road, the culmination of everything that George Martin and the Beatles had learned together over the previous seven years. And none of them ever really was able to approach that again. Frankly, I think George Harrison did the best as a solo artist. All Things Must Pass is a glorious album, very much Abbey Road-like, and save for a few missteps in the late 70s and 80s, everything from Cloud 9 through the Wilburys up to his last album are, song for song, much better than anything his bandmates were able to string together. But he, like Lennon found living in the limelight cloying, and Harrison in particular bristled under a music industry that by the late 70s had become completely obsessed with singles.

Edited October 13, 2010 by ToadBrother

[M.Dancer]

Still, I'm a big Beatles fan.

Quite, me too.

Yet, Double Fantasy is probably the second worst post Beatles work done, Honours for Worst are a tie between every other album McCartny has done.

And yes, Harrison's work is far more intereting, as an artist, as a film producer, and as an upper middleclass englishman.

[ToadBrother]

Quite, me too.

Yet, Double Fantasy is probably the second worst post Beatles work done, Honours for Worst are a tie between every other album McCartny has done.

And yes, Harrison's work is far more intereting, as an artist, as a film producer, and as an upper middleclass englishman.

I'll agree with that, except for Band On The Run. I generally can't stand Macca's solo stuff, but Band On The Run was a pretty good album, all in all.

[M.Dancer]

I'll agree with that, except for Band On The Run. I generally can't stand Macca's solo stuff, but Band On The Run was a pretty good album, all in all.

No....I think it was that album that convinced me that Paul was really dead and they had Billy Shears take over...

[Jack Weber]

Look...I like Jet,Junior's Farm,Admiral Halsey/Uncle Albert etc...

But let's face the facts,McCartney's is no lyrical genius....He writes fluff for the masses,and he's very good at it.Lennon and Harrison were far more inclined to deal with deeper subject matter.

I have to say,though,I always preferred the Rolling Stones harder edge,particularily the Mick Taylor years, to the Beatles general pop fluff.That's not to say The Baetles were completely frivilous or to say The 'Stones were completely relevent all the time...Just a personal preference.

[Moonlight Graham]

Oh who the hell did they displace?

Rxactly. Your post pretty much sums up it up.

[DogOnPorch]

I liked that one McCartney album...Ram. My dog he's got three legs...your dog...

[bloodyminded]

Look...I like Jet,Junior's Farm,Admiral Halsey/Uncle Albert etc...

But let's face the facts,McCartney's is no lyrical genius....He writes fluff for the masses,and he's very good at it.Lennon and Harrison were far more inclined to deal with deeper subject matter.

I have to say,though,I always preferred the Rolling Stones harder edge,particularily the Mick Taylor years, to the Beatles general pop fluff.That's not to say The Baetles were completely frivilous or to say The 'Stones were completely relevent all the time...Just a personal preference.

Me too. I like the Beatles a lot; but I love the Stones stuff (before they got so bloody banal). The period from '68 to '72: "Beggar's Banquet" to "Exile on Main St."--is their golden age, in my view.

[Jack Weber]

Me too. I like the Beatles a lot; but I love the Stones stuff (before they got so bloody banal). The period from '68 to '72: "Beggar's Banquet" to "Exile on Main St."--is their golden age, in my view.

Well..The Stones have'nt had a good top to bottom album since Tattoo You,and that's was in 1981.I would say they were at their best between '68 and '74(It's Only Rock and Roll was Mick Taylor's last album).

I would say this about The Beattles...In my opinion,they had reached their collective zenith by the time they broke up,probably a few years before.But the reason is that they were almost as good individually as they were together.The Rolling Stones are the exact opposite.Most of their solo stuff is'nt very good at all(some of Keith Richards solo songs are the notable exception)and they are much better staying within the group.

[Moonlight Graham]

I would say this about The Beattles...In my opinion,they had reached their collective zenith by the time they broke up,probably a few years before.But the reason is that they were almost as good individually as they were together.The Rolling Stones are the exact opposite.Most of their solo stuff is'nt very good at all(some of Keith Richards solo songs are the notable exception)and they are much better staying within the group.

McCartney has barely done jack all of anything great since The Beatles. He's a had a few hits, like Jet and Band on the Run, but Lennon whooped his butt in the 10 years or so he was alive after the Beatles compared to the 40 years Paul has had.

[August1991]

Which is why, of course, you feel the need to say so thirty years after he died.

30 years? People know the melodies of Mozart 200 years later. And they don't even know of Mozart.

IMHO, most people today talk of John Lennon because of his name, and what he represents as a 1960s boomer. In a generation or two, when this will be forgotten, what will remain of Lennon?

I think Lennon & McCartney were a fad. But your great-great-grandchildren (assuming that you have any children at all) will correct this post in 2200. IOW, in 2200, I have no doubt that people will listen to music. The question is what music will people choose: Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovski, Lennon/McCartney, the Greatest Hits of 2090s or contemporary 2200 music?

People today are presumptuous to believe that the future will choose/see the world as the present does. Wandering around Montreal, I am sometimes astonished to see what the past collectively decided to leave to the future.

----

I gave the example of Sardou to show how art (like life) can be so ephemeral. Anka sings Sardou:

But here's the first plagiarism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aht9hcDFyVw

Edited October 15, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

In 200 years, I think Lennon will be forgotten. But if he is good, he will be remembered differently.

For example:

Edited October 15, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

Quebeckers have absolutely the worst taste in music in the world.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...Robert Charlebois.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZAaEZAzGf0&feature=player_embedded#!

[Jack Weber]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZAaEZAzGf0&feature=player_embedded#!

Erm...Yeah..

One word....

CRAP!!!

[Jack Weber]

McCartney has barely done jack all of anything great since The Beatles. He's a had a few hits, like Jet and Band on the Run, but Lennon whooped his butt in the 10 years or so he was alive after the Beatles compared to the 40 years Paul has had.

That's a little harsh...I'm not a huge fan of McCartney,but Wings had more than 2 hits in the '70's.Most,if not all,were mindless candy floss however that does'nt mean they were'nt popular...Of course,Brittany Spears was popular for a while,also..

[bloodyminded]

That's a little harsh...I'm not a huge fan of McCartney,but Wings had more than 2 hits in the '70's.Most,if not all,were mindless candy floss however that does'nt mean they were'nt popular

"Silly Love Songs," for example.

Yecchhh.