The Lennon Bequest - first thoughts (longish)
jmc
and some friends have been formulating as we wake from the sixties dream and
are released from the illusion that rock'n'roll is some sacred and wonderful
thing which has enriched people's lives and led us into a better world.
The basis of our case is that the permissive revolution of the sixties was,
like all revolutions, a failure which has returned us to the starting place,
where we "hate the new boss the same as the old boss" and have, in the
meantime, shed oceans of tears and blood in making a failed point. We focus
of the figure of John Lennon as he is the figurehead of the whole movement,
his death made him its patron saint and, most of all, his attitude as an
individual is as good a place as any to begin looking at what the attitude
of the movement was, and where it has led us. This we call The Lennon
Bequest, as his was the guiding spirit of his age.
I am not wholly concerned with the quality (or otherwise) of the music. That
Lennon/McCartney as a team produced some of the greatest, most enduring and
most innovative pop songs there is no doubt. I would, however, question the
extent of such an achievement in the context of the world's cultural history
and the Beatles' popularly supposed place in it: it was merely pop music,
and lacks the complexity, depth of spiritual content and achievement in
composition of music further up the hierarchic scale. Simply put, beside
Mozart and Beethoven, for example, the Beatles are "very small" (to quote
their own Within You Without You). And whilst it will be argued that such
comparisons are odious, I would say that the very post-modern (and
post-sixties) refusal to see that some things are intrinsically on a higher
level of achievement than others is itself part of the Lennon bequest. As is
the rock music industry itself.
The rock music industry, far from being a means of liberation, is become a
form of control used by the Corporations to limit our intellect, encroach
upon our sense of individuality & national identity and dull our
sensibilities - which might otherwise find pleasure in finer musical
expressions. This the Corporations learned from the unprecedented global
success of the Beatles (with Elvis as their precursor). The sixties showed
them the benefits of selling sex, violence and rebellion as a commodity and
that commodity now feeds the decadence of a society which uses fear to
control its law-abiding citizens and deliberately stokes the violence of the
law-breaker (liberal attitudes muddying everyone's waters in the process).
Few people of discernment would deny that we are now at the fag end of
rock's ability to achieve - one can trace a line of degradation from John
Lennon to those thugs the Gallagher brothers from Oasis, whose
button-pushing, derivative and banal drivel is where we have ended. How
unlike the dreamed-for developing art-form which the Beatles promised but
failed to deliver.
I cannot leave Lennon's personality out of the mix, purely because it has
had such a cultural effect. A recent BBC panegyric described him as "Ghandi
with a sense of humour". We would be better off thinking of him as a
football hooligan with a talent for playing guitar, a restless sense of
curiosity and a very hungry ego (to mention nothing of his infantilism). The
whole idea (which Lennon got from Jimmy Porter in Look Back in Anger) that
ranting against the world and being anti-authoritarian without being
constructive was popularised by Lennon and taken as a stance by millions of
heavily ego-ed persons who, instead of developing themselves spiritually,
contented themselves with making a mock of others. Part of the Lennon
Bequest is the moral quagmire of gangster rap and satanic rock, surely.
Nowadays in the West, there is an all-prevalent idea that art can be made
not from a combination of talent (genius), study and labour but from smoking
a joint (or whatever) and letting the mind wander. But one does not develop
as an artist in such a way - on the contrary, one stalls like Lennon, a man
who offered nothing in the way of a decent achievement after 1971. He
couldn't be bothered, and the world at large has taken such scally shirking
as a cri de coeur, to its eternal detriment. What is more, Lennon's totally
mistaken conviction that Yoko Ono has any real artistic talent or anything
valid to say has led us into the current conceptual art impasse which sees
nobodies such as Tracy Emin as worthwhile and people with real abilities in
painting, composition and vision derided and ignored. One can almost see the
Tate Modern as a vast mausoleum of the sixties dream, wherein the State
instead of Apple is giving any gabby chancer the funded opportunity to
purvey their charlatan wares.
The Beatles encouraged drug use, no question. Anyone who has ever taken
drugs for an extended period of their life will tell you that they "don't
work" in a big way. Same with sex without love - I Wanna Hold Your Hand led
directly to the plague of unmarried mother, neglected children and AIDS
casualties we see in Western societies now. The line from the Beatles to the
most squalid of crack dens is a direct one and our signpost was Lennon; the
misery of wasted generation after wasted generation is part of his bequest.
The world appears to be fast sputtering towards extinction, polluted not
only by industrial emissions but by the darkness of the angry energies many
of us manifest daily. The ego is running rampant, an ego which was the only
thing John Lennon believed in (one can trace a direct line from his couplet
"I just believe in me / Yoko and Me" to Thatcher's aphorism "there is no
such thing as society, just individual men and women and families). Even his
best songs - Strawberry Fields Forever and Imagine - are mere dreams,
fantasies and not visions (it would be interesting to see a concordance of
Beatles lyrics and note how many times the word "dream" appears - I doubt
if the word vision appears even once). As Bob Dylan says, "You've got some
big dreams, baby / but you know, to dream you gotta still be asleep".
The Lennon Bequest is generations of lost souls, only sleeping, drifting
downstream into nightmares which we all better wake up from pretty soon. Or
else.
(By the way, I acknowledge that Harrison, alone of the Beatles, at least saw
that what the Beatles had created was mere illusion, dreams and fantasies in
clouds - surely the title Cloud 9 is a dig at the Lennon Bequest, 9 being
Lennon's fateful number and the cloud surely being the cloud of unkowing -
and pointed towards loss of ego as a way of getting us out of this mess.
Good on him!)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by Expert Anti-Virus.
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02
Mister Charlie
"jmc" <jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:as35ms$89a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> The following is the first flowering of some thoughts and ideas which
myself
> and some friends have been formulating as we wake from the sixties
dream and
> are released from the illusion that rock'n'roll is some sacred and
wonderful
> thing which has enriched people's lives and led us into a better
world.
I stopped bothering to read about halfway down.
Your obvious ultra-conservative views, with *all* the ills of the world
lain at a pop groups feet, betrays your very distorted view of anything
realistic. First you take away, then give the Beatles far too much
credit.
Maybe society isn't where you personally like it (yea! Dwight
Eisenhower). Your first problem is assuming everything is going to hell
in a handbasket. And blaming it on the Fabs. Maybe that's just what
YOU and your 'friends' see.
Mix a small amount of truth in with a great dollop of paranoid theories
and once again we get another right-wing Christian nutter rant. Oboy,
must be the season of the witch.
Outfidel
FWIW, I think you make some valid points. However, I think you sometimes
overstate 1) the Lennon/Beatles' social impact, and 2) the extent that
society is "fast sputtering towards extinction".
"jmc" <jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:as35ms$89a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Christopher Jepson
However, you don't seem to me like a troll but rather someone who genuinely
believes what they are saying. So I'll try to respond seriously.
1. It's obvious that something went seriously wrong with the "sixties dream".
Harrison saw that pretty clearly on his trip to Haight-Ashbury. But I think
it's important to distinguish between the "sixties dream" and what went wrong
with it. This is a theme that I've been putting some thought into lately. Also
it's important to realize that there was no one "sixties dream" -- it was a lot
more complex than that. Oversimplifications result in throwing the baby out
with the bathwater (or the reverse, I guess).
2. It's hard to tell from your post how much you really believe that Lennon and
the Beatles actually caused the things you bemoan. You do describe Lennon as a
"figurehead", implying that you think he is more a symbol of cultural changes
than an instigator of them, but at other times you use language that suggests
direct causation. My take is that the Beatles were part of a cultural milieu.
They were kind of like very popular reporters. A lot of people heard about the
changes in the air through them, but the changes were there, and would have been
there, anyway.
3. I think some things are better now because of the sixties. For example, I
think blatant racism and sexism, of the kind that was rampant earlier in the
20th century, is now a lot less socially acceptable. (I realize not everyone
here thinks that's a good thing... hope I haven't opened that old can of worms
again!)
4. I have to admit I'm curious -- were you around during the sixties?
Chris Jepson
Strabbo
news:as35ms$89a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com:
> The following is the first flowering of some thoughts and ideas which
> myself and some friends have been formulating as we wake from the
> sixties dream and are released from the illusion that rock'n'roll is
> some sacred and wonderful thing which has enriched people's lives and
> led us into a better world.
Actually, rock 'n roll, while I wouldn't necessarily ascribe the word
sacred to it (that's a very subjective and, at times, touchy word), is
certainly quite wonderful. It has enriched my life, among others, and it
complements our world nicely.
> The basis of our case is that the permissive revolution of the sixties
> was, like all revolutions, a failure which has returned us to the
> starting place, where we "hate the new boss the same as the old boss"
> and have, in the meantime, shed oceans of tears and blood in making a
> failed point.
How were we returned to the starting place? How was 1970 like 1960? Black
people took strides forward in civil rights. The woman's movement moved
forward. New forms of artistic expression were created and cultivated.
People became more globally connected with things, good and bad.
> We focus of the figure of John Lennon as he is the
> figurehead of the whole movement, his death made him its patron saint
Now you're drawing an odd conclusion. Patron saint? According to whom?
> and, most of all, his attitude as an individual is as good a place as
> any to begin looking at what the attitude of the movement was, and
> where it has led us. This we call The Lennon Bequest, as his was the
> guiding spirit of his age.
I'm sure he'd be the last to agree with you. His personal attitude in no
way reflects what the entire generation's personal attitude was. Were you
alive in the late 60's? I'm really curious.
> I am not wholly concerned with the quality (or otherwise) of the
> music. That Lennon/McCartney as a team produced some of the greatest,
> most enduring and most innovative pop songs there is no doubt. I
> would, however, question the extent of such an achievement in the
> context of the world's cultural history and the Beatles' popularly
> supposed place in it: it was merely pop music, and lacks the
> complexity, depth of spiritual content and achievement in composition
> of music further up the hierarchic scale. Simply put, beside Mozart
> and Beethoven, for example, the Beatles are "very small" (to quote
> their own Within You Without You).
That's a rather narrow way of looking at it. Yes, the classical composers
created much more complex pieces of music, but what on earth does that have
to do with the 'failure of the 60's generation'?
The Beatles were about pop culture, and they pretty much wrote the book on
what pop culture was to be while they were big. Their influence is still
being felt today, and you only have to look around you (who has a concert
speacial tonight? How many copies did '1' sell?) to see that their
influence and presence is still quite strong.
Yes, it was 'merely pop music', but 'pop music' is the most popular format
of music among the younger generation.
>And whilst it will be argued that
> such comparisons are odious, I would say that the very post-modern
> (and post-sixties) refusal to see that some things are intrinsically
> on a higher level of achievement than others is itself part of the
> Lennon bequest. As is the rock music industry itself.
It sounds to me like this probably read as quite 'deep' to you after you
wrote it, when it fact it sounds very much to me like a pseudo-intellectual
opinion being passed off as fact.
> The rock music industry, far from being a means of liberation, is
> become a form of control used by the Corporations to limit our
> intellect, encroach upon our sense of individuality & national
> identity and dull our sensibilities - which might otherwise find
> pleasure in finer musical expressions.
Excuse me?
Okay, I won't deny that the music industry is run by corporations, and a
lot of what's distributed and promoted these days is sculpted to a formula,
but how exactly is it 'controlling' us?
>This the Corporations learned
> from the unprecedented global success of the Beatles (with Elvis as
> their precursor). The sixties showed them the benefits of selling sex,
> violence and rebellion as a commodity and that commodity now feeds the
> decadence of a society which uses fear to control its law-abiding
> citizens and deliberately stokes the violence of the law-breaker
And you're tying this back to pop music of the 60's? Seriously?
> (liberal attitudes muddying everyone's waters in the process). Few
> people of discernment would deny that we are now at the fag end of
> rock's ability to achieve -
The fag end... haven't heard that one before.
We are at the end of the era where a single rock band can hold the kind of
influence over the masses that the Beatles did. Which is a point that is
inevitably made in every "who will be the next Beatles" thread on the
Beatles' newsgroup.
> one can trace a line of degradation from
> John Lennon to those thugs the Gallagher brothers from Oasis, whose
> button-pushing, derivative and banal drivel is where we have ended.
One can trace a line up the other way to Hank friggin' Williams if one
would like to.
> How unlike the dreamed-for developing art-form which the Beatles
> promised but failed to deliver.
The Beatles had no problem delivering their art form. To hold them
responsible for the music that came afterwards is ludicrous. They made what
they made, and it was art and we loved it.
> I cannot leave Lennon's personality out of the mix, purely because it
> has had such a cultural effect. A recent BBC panegyric described him
> as "Ghandi with a sense of humour". We would be better off thinking of
> him as a football hooligan with a talent for playing guitar, a
> restless sense of curiosity and a very hungry ego (to mention nothing
> of his infantilism).
I'm sure John would agree with you. He never wanted to be a 'Ghandi'. Just
look at the interview that spawned the whole 'We're bigger than Jesus'
controversy. Look at what he was really saying.
> The whole idea (which Lennon got from Jimmy
> Porter in Look Back in Anger) that ranting against the world and being
> anti-authoritarian without being constructive was popularised by
> Lennon and taken as a stance by millions of heavily ego-ed persons
> who, instead of developing themselves spiritually, contented
> themselves with making a mock of others.
Lennon was also very public about developing himself spiritually. He and
George lasted the longest in India with the Maharishi.
> Part of the Lennon Bequest is
> the moral quagmire of gangster rap and satanic rock, surely.
You're blaming Lennon for Marilyn Manson???
It sounds like you're just aching to pin what you see as the evils of the
world and the music industry on one nice, easy to recognize target. Life
isn't that black and white, jmc.
> Nowadays in the West, there is an all-prevalent idea that art can be
> made not from a combination of talent (genius), study and labour but
> from smoking a joint (or whatever) and letting the mind wander.
Well, it can. It's not necessarily GOOD, but that doesn't make it not art.
> But
> one does not develop as an artist in such a way - on the contrary, one
> stalls like Lennon, a man who offered nothing in the way of a decent
> achievement after 1971.
Lennon started smoking pot years earlier. And criticizing him as not having
written a 'decent achievement' AFTER 1971, when you take into account the
vast 'achievements' he created during and before that year (more than most
anyone could dream of) is a little ridiculous. And again, you're talking
opinion. Some would argue that 'Woman', 'Beautiful Boy', '#9 Dream' and for
that matter 'Steel And Glass' are rather decent.
> He couldn't be bothered, and the world at
> large has taken such scally shirking as a cri de coeur, to its eternal
> detriment. What is more, Lennon's totally mistaken conviction that
> Yoko Ono has any real artistic talent or anything valid to say has led
> us into the current conceptual art impasse which sees nobodies such as
> Tracy Emin as worthwhile and people with real abilities in painting,
> composition and vision derided and ignored.
Conceptual art predates Yoko Ono. And while I don't find Yoko's artistic
output to be of my tastes, a cheap shot at her isn't doing much of anything
for your argument.
> One can almost see the
> Tate Modern as a vast mausoleum of the sixties dream, wherein the
> State instead of Apple is giving any gabby chancer the funded
> opportunity to purvey their charlatan wares.
Having no idea what the Tate Modern is, I won't comment.
> The Beatles encouraged drug use, no question.
Yep. Got me curious enough to try 'em.
> Anyone who has ever
> taken drugs for an extended period of their life will tell you that
> they "don't work" in a big way.
Anyone? Bullshit. I've smoked pot for an extended period of my life, and
I'll tell you right now that in moderation (like anything else), there's
nothing wrong with it. I don't experiment with anything else these days,
but I don't regret having experienced it. Okay, maybe some of the
experiences specifically, but that's another issue.
Your opinion on drugs has been stated before, and it really strikes me
(correct me if I'm wrong) as though you're coming from a perspective of
inexperience on the issue.
> Same with sex without love - I Wanna
> Hold Your Hand led directly to the plague of unmarried mother,
> neglected children and AIDS casualties we see in Western societies
> now.
Holding hands led to the AIDS epidemic? Sounds to me like you're missing a
bit of fruit in your loop, dude.
I have no idea what string of logic you created from these strands of
unrelated incidents, but this makes no sense.
>The line from the Beatles to the most squalid of crack dens is a
> direct one and our signpost was Lennon; the misery of wasted
> generation after wasted generation is part of his bequest.
Are you posting this same diatribe to the Elvis newsgroup with an extention
of the line up from Lennon to the king?
Or is this a joke?
> The world appears to be fast sputtering towards extinction, polluted
> not only by industrial emissions but by the darkness of the angry
> energies many of us manifest daily. The ego is running rampant, an ego
> which was the only thing John Lennon believed in (one can trace a
> direct line from his couplet "I just believe in me / Yoko and Me" to
> Thatcher's aphorism "there is no such thing as society, just
> individual men and women and families). Even his best songs -
> Strawberry Fields Forever and Imagine - are mere dreams, fantasies and
> not visions (it would be interesting to see a concordance of Beatles
> lyrics and note how many times the word "dream" appears - I doubt if
> the word vision appears even once). As Bob Dylan says, "You've got
> some big dreams, baby / but you know, to dream you gotta still be
> asleep".
>
> The Lennon Bequest is generations of lost souls, only sleeping,
> drifting downstream into nightmares which we all better wake up from
> pretty soon. Or else.
Okay, I'm sure by now you must be joking.
> (By the way, I acknowledge that Harrison, alone of the Beatles, at
> least saw that what the Beatles had created was mere illusion, dreams
> and fantasies in clouds - surely the title Cloud 9 is a dig at the
> Lennon Bequest, 9 being Lennon's fateful number and the cloud surely
> being the cloud of unkowing - and pointed towards loss of ego as a way
> of getting us out of this mess. Good on him!)
Either that, or he was using an already-coined expression to mean 'a groovy
place'.
Marty
jmc
news:3DE52460...@mail.med.upenn.edu...
> I'm sure you're aware that your post is going to catch some serious flak
here.
> However, you don't seem to me like a troll but rather someone who
genuinely
> believes what they are saying. So I'll try to respond seriously.
>
>
>
> Chris Jepson
Cheers for taking this seriously - believe me, I am not "right wing" nor a
Christian in any conventional sense (as someone accused me). I'm actually
neither right or left wing, I believe that both sides have their points to
make and that both sides seriously miss THE POINT.
I was born in 1966 (on the day Dylan came off his motorcycle - a ponderable
synchronicity for me...) and I feel that I have grown up with the messages
of that generation around me, and that the donee which says the whole
Beatles/60s/drugs/sex caboodle was the best thing that ever happened simply
does not appear to be true. Of course, I realise that post-war austerity had
a lot to do with it, but what is now happening is extremely serious and the
lazy-minded, let-it-all-hang-out attitudes of that era will not help us
solve it one bit, nor will any return to street protests (the hippies did
nothing to end Vietnam as far as I can see, America pulled out 'cos it was
whupped).
I loved rock'n'roll for most of my adult life, and Dylan I still find an
enormously inspirational genius (in contrast to Lennon). Lennon in my
analysis is part figurehead, part cause - its not easy to untwine these
things.
Yeah, I know I'll get flack for the post (Mr Charlie has already given me
the knee-jerk reactionary stance) but I'm keen to kick through the
complacent conservatism in rock history and see where the whole thing has
really led us. And I don't think I undersestimate the cultural importance of
the Beatles et al in leading us where we are. If culture doesn't help create
society, what does???
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what went wrong with the sixties
dream...
Mister Charlie
"Christopher Jepson" <cje...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:3DE52460...@mail.med.upenn.edu...
flak here.
Of course he was.
> However, you don't seem to me like a troll but rather someone who
genuinely
> believes what they are saying.
Which is rather disappointing.
> So I'll try to respond seriously.
>
> 1. It's obvious that something went seriously wrong with the "sixties
dream".
Sorry, not obvious to me. Or others I know.
> Harrison saw that pretty clearly on his trip to Haight-Ashbury.
He was on acid. Even Derek Taylor who was there with him said George
overreacted to the drug, not the scene.
> But I think
> it's important to distinguish between the "sixties dream" and what
went wrong
> with it. This is a theme that I've been putting some thought into
lately. Also
> it's important to realize that there was no one "sixties dream" -- it
was a lot
> more complex than that. Oversimplifications result in throwing the
baby out
> with the bathwater (or the reverse, I guess).
Agreed.
>
> 2. It's hard to tell from your post how much you really believe that
Lennon and
> the Beatles actually caused the things you bemoan. You do describe
Lennon as a
> "figurehead", implying that you think he is more a symbol of cultural
changes
> than an instigator of them, but at other times you use language that
suggests
> direct causation. My take is that the Beatles were part of a cultural
milieu.
> They were kind of like very popular reporters. A lot of people heard
about the
> changes in the air through them, but the changes were there, and would
have been
> there, anyway.
That is a tough one, only because its so hard to disentangle the Beatles
of the 1963-1966 period from what was going on all around.
>
> 3. I think some things are better now because of the sixties. For
example, I
> think blatant racism and sexism, of the kind that was rampant earlier
in the
> 20th century, is now a lot less socially acceptable. (I realize not
everyone
> here thinks that's a good thing... hope I haven't opened that old can
of worms
> again!)
As you said, there was more than one 'dream'. This is one of the better
aspects.
>
> 4. I have to admit I'm curious -- were you around during the sixties?
Fair question.
Mister Charlie
> "Christopher Jepson" <cje...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:3DE52460...@mail.med.upenn.edu...
> > I'm sure you're aware that your post is going to catch some serious
flak
> here.
> > However, you don't seem to me like a troll but rather someone who
> genuinely
> > believes what they are saying. So I'll try to respond seriously.
> >
> >
> > 4. I have to admit I'm curious -- were you around during the
sixties?
> >
> > Chris Jepson
>
>
> Cheers for taking this seriously - believe me, I am not "right wing"
nor a
> Christian in any conventional sense (as someone accused me).
That would have been me.
I'm actually
> neither right or left wing, I believe that both sides have their
points to
> make and that both sides seriously miss THE POINT.
No, MY point is that YOUR point is a bunch of crap. Succinctly put.
Based on the intellectual trolling you shat in here, that's all. I
don't believe you're serious for a minute, hence my reply. Maybe you're
so screwed up because of the 60's, huh?
mark
jmc
"Mister Charlie" <smoker...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:as3esp$nont5$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "jmc" <jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:as3cqh$jmv$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > "Christopher Jepson" <cje...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3DE52460...@mail.med.upenn.edu...
>
> >
>
> don't believe you're serious for a minute, hence my reply. Maybe you're
> so screwed up because of the 60's, huh?
>
Your violent and reactionary replies to my post (which was not trolling by
any definition) lucidly illustrate the point I make about part of The Lennon
Bequest - rudeness and truculence in place of honourable debate.
If the sixties were such an enlightening thing for you, then why are you so
angry?
Or are you merely "a right Charlie"?
Mister Charlie
>
> "Mister Charlie" <smoker...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:as3esp$nont5$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "jmc" <jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:as3cqh$jmv$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > "Christopher Jepson" <cje...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:3DE52460...@mail.med.upenn.edu...
> > No, MY point is that YOUR point is a bunch of crap. Succinctly put.
> >
> > >
> >
> > Based on the intellectual trolling you shat in here, that's all. I
> > don't believe you're serious for a minute, hence my reply. Maybe
you're
> > so screwed up because of the 60's, huh?
> >
>
> Your violent and reactionary replies to my post (which was not
trolling by
> any definition) lucidly illustrate the point I make about part of The
Lennon
> Bequest - rudeness and truculence in place of honourable debate.
Calling this violent just shows the hyperbole you assign to your
'thoughts' about John and the 60's. Hence my answers. Yours is not
honourable discourse to my eyes.
>
> If the sixties were such an enlightening thing for you, then why are
you so
> angry?
Because you're writing off an entire generation, one you have no actual
knowledge of, with ridiculous and overbroad statements.
I simply answer you in the manner to which your entitled.
>
> Or are you merely "a right Charlie"?
>
As it so happens I am.
jmc
"Strabbo" <str...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92D38FB923635...@24.70.95.211...
> (correct me if I'm wrong) as though you're coming from a perspective of
> inexperience on the issue.
>
>
You see, what people still entangeled in the DREAM cannot understand is that
WHEN YOU COME OUT OF IT, you see a lot of it was just so much bullshit. But
it can be difficult coming around to admitting it.
But respect - you're points are interesting (except your assumptions about
me), even though nothing changes my mind on what I am seeing. I know a lot
of people, especially those who were around in the 60s, have vested
interests in keeping the whole doxa re that era going, but the statues are
gonna crumble and the streets of Rome are gonna be filled with ruins...
jmc
> 'thoughts' about John and the 60's. Hence my answers. Yours is not
> honourable discourse to my eyes.
> >
You see, you don't know what is verbal violence and the release of angry
energy & that's because of where you're coming from. You're well in
illusion!
Mister Charlie
>
> "Strabbo" <str...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92D38FB923635...@24.70.95.211...
> > "jmc" <jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:as35ms$89a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com:
> >
> >
> > Your opinion on drugs has been stated before, and it really strikes
me
> > (correct me if I'm wrong) as though you're coming from a perspective
of
> > inexperience on the issue.
> >
> >
> Here you are totally wrong - couldn't be more so, actually.
>
> You see, what people still entangeled in the DREAM cannot understand
is that
> WHEN YOU COME OUT OF IT, you see a lot of it was just so much
bullshit. But
> it can be difficult coming around to admitting it.
>
> But respect - you're points are interesting (except your assumptions
about
> me), even though nothing changes my mind on what I am seeing. I know a
lot
> of people, especially those who were around in the 60s, have vested
> interests in keeping the whole doxa re that era going, but the statues
are
> gonna crumble and the streets of Rome are gonna be filled with
ruins...
>
ahhh, Jesus, here we go.....
Mister Charlie
> > Calling this violent just shows the hyperbole you assign to your
> > 'thoughts' about John and the 60's. Hence my answers. Yours is not
> > honourable discourse to my eyes.
> > >
>
>
> You see, you don't know what is verbal violence and the release of
angry
> energy & that's because of where you're coming from. You're well in
> illusion!
>
>
but still no more than a troll.
David P Chabot
here...!
The world is in a "bad state"... we as Americans are now losing some of the
rights that we fought hard to keep... simply because (IMHO) we have gotten
lazy and have not minded to our business... we don't vote... we don't react
when corporations take... excuse me STEAL millions of dollars from workers
hard earned 401K plans... their financial futures ruined... we have allowed
religious bigotry to rule our governmental decisions...(there should be a
claus in the Constitution about "freedom FROM religion)... GREED...OIL
SPILLS... WAR... etc...etc...etc...
and we lay this ALL at the feet of THE BEATLES....??? UNBELIEVABLE...! I
think that THIS kind of reasoning is the cause of our problems today.
When I went to school (to learn!) chewing gum was practically a crime... now
the kids are KILLING each other...
A guy recently was arrested for killing a policeman... he wanted to point
out police brutality...HUH?
Priests are molesting children and their superiors quickly cover up their
CRIMES by moving them to anothe church...
And all this is because John and Yoko decided to crawl inside a bag to
protest war...?
As to the music... those WONDERFUL UPLIFTING LIFE AFFIRMING melodies and
harmonies (no KILL THE COP/BEAT THE BITCH lyrics) and the exquisite
intrumentation and studio recording advances that have been given to the
world... though not the same as Mozart or Beethoven... are certainly of an
artistic quality equal to these composers... it's just a differnce of
style... and Mozart and Beethoven wrote for an elite audience (Kings and
Dukes etc)... the BEATLES wrote for US... just regular folk... and it was
GOOD.
The problems that occur in our world today are not John's fault... or
Paul... or George... or Ringo.. the problems today are OUR fault... you and
me... take responsibility for your world... all the good and all the bad...
Peace...Dave www.Shemakhan.com
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast."
Through the Looking-Glass Lewis Carroll
Strabbo
news:as3g98$pvu$1...@venus.btinternet.com:
>> Your opinion on drugs has been stated before, and it really strikes
>> me (correct me if I'm wrong) as though you're coming from a
>> perspective of inexperience on the issue.
>>
>>
> Here you are totally wrong - couldn't be more so, actually.
Okay, so you have some experience in the drug field then. My apologies for
assuming otherwise.
> You see, what people still entangeled in the DREAM cannot understand
> is that WHEN YOU COME OUT OF IT,
Whoa.... hold up a sec. What is the DREAM exactly?
> you see a lot of it was just so much
> bullshit. But it can be difficult coming around to admitting it.
As far as drugs go (and that's the only part you've responded to here, so
I'm assuming that's the only part we're discussing at this point), I think
the drug experience (is that the DREAM?) is different for everyone. I'm a
lot younger than you, and I went through an over-indulgence phase, but I
never came to the conclusion that drugs are an evil thing. They can (if
properly used) be truly wonderful.
Yes, the 60's generation popularized pot smoking and drugs. This all
happened while the Beatles were famous, not because of them. They weren't
the first musicians to smoke it, nor were they the first to become known as
pot smokers.
However, drugs were still being done before the 60's. And with
popularization of drugs came better education on drugs. We know what these
things do to us, to a large extent. We know that smoking is bad, a lot more
than we knew in 1960. We know that pot does not make you go crazy and stab
people.
> But respect - you're points are interesting (except your assumptions
> about me), even though nothing changes my mind on what I am seeing.
Well, I didn't think it would. That isn't the point of discussion, is it? I
do suggest you keep your mind open, however. There are several people in
both these newsgroups who experienced the 60's not from a 4-year-old and
younger point of view, but first-hand. People from all over the world who
could describe Lennon's cultural-figureheadidity. People who you (and I)
could learn from.
Your opinions are fully valid, but you have to keep in mind that they are
not fact.
>I
> know a lot of people, especially those who were around in the 60s,
> have vested interests in keeping the whole doxa re that era going, but
> the statues are gonna crumble and the streets of Rome are gonna be
> filled with ruins...
I really don't see it. The 60's is in the books now, and any 'blame' you
can trace back there can get traced back further.
You didn't address this point:
When you wrote:
>The line from the Beatles to the most squalid of crack dens is a
> direct one and our signpost was Lennon; the misery of wasted
> generation after wasted generation is part of his bequest.
don't you think it appropriate to trace it back further? Maybe re-title the
thread The Presley Bequest?
I'm curious where you stand on this.
Marty
robertandrews
>I would, however, question the extent of such an achievement in the context
of the world's cultural history and the Beatles' popularly supposed place in
Transcended pop music. And The Beatles drew from many different forms &
styles.
>and lacks the complexity, . . .
Incorrect.
>depth of spiritual content
I think the Beatles are incredibly "spiritual" (if that means a damn thing).
>and achievement in composition of music further up the hierarchic scale.
Incorrect.
>Simply put, beside Mozart and Beethoven, for example, the Beatles are "very
small"
Or "very large," depending on one's musical taste.
>The sixties showed them the benefits of selling sex . . .
"And isn't it time Congress did something about Mae West?"
~ William Randolph Hearst
" . . . violence"
Religion sold that, thousands of years before Beatles. People are still
killing for their Gods, or so they claim.
" . . . and rebellion"
Sex, drugs & rockin' music are as old as the hills.
>We would be better off thinking of him as a football hooligan with a talent
for playing guitar, . . .
Lennon was one of the great artists of our times, & maybe for all times.
Tremendous songwriter, musician, singer & performer.
"the beetles shall inherit the earth"
~ Jumpin' Jesus Jehosephat
David P Chabot
watched a documentary called "It Was 20 Years Ago Today"... in it Paul
McCartney is being questioned by the media about his admission to using
drugs... the media suggests that his admission will cause others to use
drugs... make drug use popular... Paul states that it is the media that is
"promoting" abuse... if they don't print it in the newspapers or show it on
TV then who would know? I think Paul makes a good point... if the media said
nothing about the subject, it probably wouldn't have been noticed by the
large majority of the people... as any PR person knows if you want to
advertise and create a stir about a book or movie etc,,, create a
controversy! I am not promoting censorship... but DISCRETION should be
considered... what are the cosequences of reporting this particular bit of
"news"... I too like many others have experimented with drugs... I am not an
addict... or muderer... or child molester... or carjacker... as a matter of
fact I am an upstanding citizen of this world... if the "powers that be"
would stop lying to us all the time about drugs (MARIJUANA IS NOT
HARMFUL)... certainly not as harmful as alchohol... perhaps we as citizens
might have more faith in our leadership... which in turn may lead us to CARE
more about voting and volunteering and helping others and lead to less
bigotry and hatred and blaming others for all our problems...
Just my humble opinion...
paramucho
<jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've taken the Dylan group out of my response list.
<snip>
>The basis of our case is that the permissive revolution of the sixties was,
>like all revolutions, a failure which has returned us to the starting place,
>where we "hate the new boss the same as the old boss" and have, in the
>meantime, shed oceans of tears and blood in making a failed point.
An alternate view is that all revolutions are successful. Another way
to look at the sixties revolution is as a symptom rather than a cause.
Something happened then and the world was changed fundamentally at the
time and remains so. Perhaps that's more difficult to see if without
having experienced the preceding period.
> We focus
>of the figure of John Lennon as he is the figurehead of the whole movement,
>his death made him its patron saint and, most of all, his attitude as an
>individual is as good a place as any to begin looking at what the attitude
>of the movement was, and where it has led us. This we call The Lennon
>Bequest, as his was the guiding spirit of his age.
Well, you're not really talking about him so much as lumbering him
with all the stuff you can think of.
>I am not wholly concerned with the quality (or otherwise) of the music. That
>Lennon/McCartney as a team produced some of the greatest, most enduring and
>most innovative pop songs there is no doubt. I would, however, question the
>extent of such an achievement in the context of the world's cultural history
>and the Beatles' popularly supposed place in it: it was merely pop music,
>and lacks the complexity, depth of spiritual content and achievement in
>composition of music further up the hierarchic scale. Simply put, beside
>Mozart and Beethoven, for example, the Beatles are "very small" (to quote
>their own Within You Without You). And whilst it will be argued that such
>comparisons are odious, I would say that the very post-modern (and
>post-sixties) refusal to see that some things are intrinsically on a higher
>level of achievement than others is itself part of the Lennon bequest. As is
>the rock music industry itself.
Well, that's a reasonable proposition but how are you going to measure
that proposition. To argue that a refusal to recognise levels of
achievement is ascribable to rock is questionable at many levels.
Are you addressing purely musical achievement or cultural impact. The
cultural impact of a music is not measured by some arbitrary measure
of it's complexity. If you're discussing complexity, then this is the
wrong thread. If you're discussing cultural impact, then complexity
has little to do with it. I'll assume it's social impact you're aiming
at.
By the end of WWII music from the so-called classical had become more
or less socially irrelevant. This area no longer provides the music
for cultural rites. You simply need to look at the recent major global
events to get a clue in that area. Rock provides the music.
>The rock music industry, far from being a means of liberation, is become a
>form of control used by the Corporations to limit our intellect, encroach
>upon our sense of individuality & national identity and dull our
>sensibilities - which might otherwise find pleasure in finer musical
>expressions. This the Corporations learned from the unprecedented global
>success of the Beatles (with Elvis as their precursor). The sixties showed
>them the benefits of selling sex, violence and rebellion as a commodity and
>that commodity now feeds the decadence of a society which uses fear to
>control its law-abiding citizens and deliberately stokes the violence of the
>law-breaker (liberal attitudes muddying everyone's waters in the process).
>Few people of discernment would deny that we are now at the fag end of
>rock's ability to achieve - one can trace a line of degradation from John
>Lennon to those thugs the Gallagher brothers from Oasis, whose
>button-pushing, derivative and banal drivel is where we have ended. How
>unlike the dreamed-for developing art-form which the Beatles promised but
>failed to deliver.
Sure, that was a failed uptopian dream. The same dream continues to be
dreamed by others but if you wish to concentrate on the success of the
corporations....
When you write "those thugs the Gallagher brothers from Oasis, whose
button-pushing, derivative and banal drivel is where we have ended" it
would seem to me that you're in fact letting some strongly held
personal subjective views color the results of what might have seemed
to be an independent process otherwise.
>I cannot leave Lennon's personality out of the mix, purely because it has
>had such a cultural effect. A recent BBC panegyric described him as "Ghandi
>with a sense of humour". We would be better off thinking of him as a
>football hooligan with a talent for playing guitar, a restless sense of
>curiosity and a very hungry ego (to mention nothing of his infantilism). The
>whole idea (which Lennon got from Jimmy Porter in Look Back in Anger) that
>ranting against the world and being anti-authoritarian without being
>constructive was popularised by Lennon and taken as a stance by millions of
>heavily ego-ed persons who, instead of developing themselves spiritually,
>contented themselves with making a mock of others. Part of the Lennon
>Bequest is the moral quagmire of gangster rap and satanic rock, surely.
Well, there's little logic here to follow. You've made a couple of
associations and even provided Lennon with some form of pre-planned
agenda. Even a casual acquaintance with Lennon's major work just
doesn't match your description.
>Nowadays in the West, there is an all-prevalent idea that art can be made
>not from a combination of talent (genius), study and labour but from smoking
>a joint (or whatever) and letting the mind wander. But one does not develop
>as an artist in such a way - on the contrary, one stalls like Lennon, a man
>who offered nothing in the way of a decent achievement after 1971. He
>couldn't be bothered, and the world at large has taken such scally shirking
>as a cri de coeur, to its eternal detriment. What is more, Lennon's totally
>mistaken conviction that Yoko Ono has any real artistic talent or anything
>valid to say has led us into the current conceptual art impasse which sees
>nobodies such as Tracy Emin as worthwhile and people with real abilities in
>painting, composition and vision derided and ignored. One can almost see the
>Tate Modern as a vast mausoleum of the sixties dream, wherein the State
>instead of Apple is giving any gabby chancer the funded opportunity to
>purvey their charlatan wares.
That's a favorite topic of mine, but I'll constrain the focus to John
Lennon in this case. Lennon was certainly not someone who just smoked
a joint and let his mind wander. He and his band worked incredibly
hard on their music. He toiled incessantly on his songs, as the record
shows.
The kind of idea that you're fighting here does not come from Lennon
but from precisely the field of music that you placed at a higher
level in the heirachy in an earlier paragraph. It's the so-called
inheritors of Bach and Beethoven that you're talking about, not
workers like Lennon.
>The Beatles encouraged drug use, no question. Anyone who has ever taken
>drugs for an extended period of their life will tell you that they "don't
>work" in a big way. Same with sex without love - I Wanna Hold Your Hand led
>directly to the plague of unmarried mother, neglected children and AIDS
>casualties we see in Western societies now. The line from the Beatles to the
>most squalid of crack dens is a direct one and our signpost was Lennon; the
>misery of wasted generation after wasted generation is part of his bequest.
Perhaps you examine the popular culture of the earlier part of the
last century where the use of drugs often referred to in song. Yes,
the sixties has a legacy in this area, and yes the music is completely
mixed up in it. That's a worthy topic for a discussion, but not in the
simplistic terms in which you present it.
>The world appears to be fast sputtering towards extinction, polluted not
>only by industrial emissions but by the darkness of the angry energies many
>of us manifest daily. The ego is running rampant, an ego which was the only
>thing John Lennon believed in (one can trace a direct line from his couplet
>"I just believe in me / Yoko and Me" to Thatcher's aphorism "there is no
>such thing as society, just individual men and women and families). Even his
>best songs - Strawberry Fields Forever and Imagine - are mere dreams,
>fantasies and not visions (it would be interesting to see a concordance of
>Beatles lyrics and note how many times the word "dream" appears - I doubt
>if the word vision appears even once). As Bob Dylan says, "You've got some
>big dreams, baby / but you know, to dream you gotta still be asleep".
Well, the funny thing is that Armageddon is a very old world. People
have been prophesising the end of the world for as long as there have
been people. And they're right. Something changed in the sixties which
effectively put an end to the world of the preceding period.
However, to somehow ascribe personal blame to individuals in the
period is a bit like equating a rain drop with a flood.
>The Lennon Bequest is generations of lost souls, only sleeping, drifting
>downstream into nightmares which we all better wake up from pretty soon. Or
>else.
Mate, any revolution has its pluses and it's minuses. The sixties was
no different. The only valid point you make above, IMO, is the link
between todays drug culture and the sixties, and as I said, that's
worth a separate somewhat more informed discussion. For the rest, the
sixties revolution was the symptom, not the cause.
Wild horses would drag me back to a pre-Sixties world and I suspect
you'd be like a fish out of water there as well. The very nature of
this dialogue is post-fifties.
<snip>
Ian
paramucho
<dpch...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Interesting thread... I was born in 1948... makes me an "old fart" around
>here...!
To me, it means you might have just missed out on Buddy Holly.
Ian (1946)
Bob
not rock 'n' roll!
--
Peace,
Bob
"David P Chabot" <dpch...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:lTbF9.280$Rm6.27...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Yves de Repentigny
> 2. It's hard to tell from your post how much you really believe that Lennon and
> the Beatles actually caused the things you bemoan. You do describe Lennon as a
> "figurehead", implying that you think he is more a symbol of cultural changes
> than an instigator of them, but at other times you use language that suggests
> direct causation. My take is that the Beatles were part of a cultural milieu.
> They were kind of like very popular reporters. A lot of people heard about the
> changes in the air through them, but the changes were there, and would have been
> there, anyway.
I think that John Lennon himself summed it up pretty well when he said
(quote from the Beatles Anthology): "The sixties saw a revolution
among youth - not just concentrating in small pockets or classes, but
a revolution in a whole way of thinking. The youth got it first and
the next generation second. The Beatles were part of the revolution,
which is really an evolution, and is continuing. We were all on this
ship - a ship going to discover the New World. And the Beatles were in
the crow's nest".
Jason Paris
Interesting post. I hope to discuss a number of points with you.
> I would, however, question the extent of such an achievement in the context of the world's cultural history and the Beatles' popularly supposed place in it: it was merely pop music.... <
Indeed. And the works of Mozart and Beethoven are merely "Classical
music".
To confer "cultural significance" upon a particular object (whether it
be Pop Music, Classical Music, or toothpaste) is merely the expression
of one's *subjective opinion*.
My point being this: Music simply *is*. It's not "significant"
within itself, nor is it objectively significant relative to anything
else.
It's the *subjective opinion* of the beholder that confers
significance upon Music (and everything else, for that matter). And
that significance resides *entirely* the the mind of beholder.
Therefore, objectively, Classical is of no greater signficance than
Pop, and vice versa. They both just "are".
So why be critical? ;-)
> ... and lacks the complexity, depth of spiritual content and achievement in composition of music further up the hierarchic scale.<
Are relative "complexity" and "achievement" the most admirable
qualities of a musical creation? If so, upon whose authority?
Surely it's apparent that the affection people reserve for The Beatles
has little to do with the relative complexity of their music, or any
other "well-reasoned" response? It's generally an intuitive,
non-rational affection.
Which is *not* a condemnation.
Incidentally, can you clarify "depth of spiritual content", and how
might one measure it?
> The rock music industry, far from being a means of liberation, is become a
> form of control used by the Corporations to limit our intellect, encroach
> upon our sense of individuality & national identity and dull our
> sensibilities.....
All of which WE - the music listening public - have gone into
agreement with.
We are not *forced* to sustain the Rock Music industry, nor to devote
one second of our attention to its product. If we do, it's because we
*choose to*, and are therefore accomplices in the scenario you've
described.
> The sixties showed them the benefits of selling sex, violence and rebellion as a commodity and that commodity now feeds the decadence of a society which uses fear to control its law-abiding citizens <
The "fear" & "decadence" you've described is the possession of those
"law-abiding citizens". Again, it is their *choice* to respond to
Corporate manipulation with fear. It is also their choice to pursue
decadence.
No-one has *forced* anything upon them.
> How unlike the dreamed-for developing art-form which the Beatles promised but failed to deliver.<
The Beatles "promised" nothing. The listening public may have
inferred a promise, but that too is the possession of the listener
alone.
> The whole idea (which Lennon got from Jimmy Porter in Look Back in Anger) that
ranting against the world and being anti-authoritarian without being
constructive was popularised by Lennon and taken as a stance by
millions of
heavily ego-ed persons who, instead of developing themselves
spiritually,
contented themselves with making a mock of others.
Part of the Lennon Bequest is the moral quagmire of gangster rap and
satanic rock, surely.<
Therein lies the challenge for those who "disapprove" of these styles
of music: Continue to hate them (which - to continue your theme - has
no constructive value), or stop hating them (which has the profoundly
constructive value of reducing the quantity of hate in your life).
It remains *every* individual's choice to hate or to not hate. It's
not the "hated" object that's doing it *to* them. For the object
itself just IS.
> Nowadays in the West, there is an all-prevalent idea that art can be made
> not from a combination of talent (genius), study and labour but from smoking
> a joint (or whatever) and letting the mind wander. But one does not develop
> as an artist in such a way - on the contrary, one stalls like Lennon, a man
> who offered nothing in the way of a decent achievement after 1971. He
> couldn't be bothered, and the world at large has taken such scally shirking
> as a cri de coeur, to its eternal detriment.<
Again, a subjective opinion. How can one be certain that the rest of
Humankind isn't utterly happy with it concept of what art is/isn't?
> What is more, Lennon's totally mistaken conviction that Yoko Ono has any real artistic talent <
Another subjective opinion, which begs this question: does *any*
individual on this planet hold the "true and accurate" definition of
Art? If so, how can we be sure that that definition doesn't also
embrace Yoko's creations?
> valid to say has led us into the current conceptual art impasse which sees
> nobodies such as Tracy Emin as worthwhile and people with real abilities in
> painting, composition and vision derided and ignored.<
If that *is* public opinion, so be it. What's to be achieved by
harbouring dismay at public opinion? Surely that, too, is another
non-constructive pursuit?
> The Beatles encouraged drug use, no question. <
Did they? Or might it be that observers of The Beatles' behaviour
*chose* to mimick that behaviour?
> Anyone who has ever taken drugs for an extended period of their life will tell you that they "don't work" in a big way. Same with sex without love - I Wanna Hold Your Hand led directly to the plague of unmarried mother, neglected children and AIDS casualties we see in Western societies now. <
I'm becoming repetitive, but:
* drug usage
* loveless sex
* child neglect
* to be a recipient/transmitter of AIDS
..... are again the *choice* of the people involved. Why attempt to
invalidate another's choice? Because the world no longer conforms to
your concept?
If that *is* the answer, then perhaps also answer this......
"Which is easier to change:
* The rest of the world
* Your reaction to the rest of the world?"
And which of those two options offers *you* the greatest opportunity
for growth?
> The ego is running rampant...... <
Again, it's the indivdual's choice to be ego-driven or not. It's not
the "fault" of anyone/thing external to the individual (John Lennon
included).
Humankind is *not* the passive victim suggested by your posting. We
have a willing and active role in embracing the perceived
"negativities" that you've described.
> Even his best songs - Strawberry Fields Forever and Imagine - are mere dreams,
> fantasies and not visions <
If the lyric of 'Imagine' is not a succinct and clear vision, then I
must ask: please define 'vision'.
> (it would be interesting to see a concordance of
> Beatles lyrics and note how many times the word "dream" appears - I doubt
> if the word vision appears even once).
Was there any requirement for The Beatles to speak in visionary terms?
Again, this may be the inferred expectation of (some of) their
listeners alone.
> The Lennon Bequest is generations of lost souls, only sleeping, drifting
> downstream into nightmares which we all better wake up from pretty soon. Or
> else.
Or else what?
What would it *really* matter if Humankind's worst nightmares came to
pass? Wouldn't we just adapt, as we have done in *every single
moment* since we first appeared?
Indeed, what would it *really* matter if Humankind disappeared from
the planet entirely? To whom would it matter, and why?
> (By the way, I acknowledge that Harrison, alone of the Beatles, at least saw
> that what the Beatles had created was mere illusion, dreams and fantasies in
> clouds - surely the title Cloud 9 is a dig at the Lennon Bequest, 9 being
> Lennon's fateful number and the cloud surely being the cloud of unkowing -
> and pointed towards loss of ego as a way of getting us out of this mess.
> Good on him!)
With respect James, if you're advocating the benefits of the
diminution of one's ego - not a bad thing IMHO - then you presumably
have diminished your own so that it's now in equipoise with the rest
of your personality.
If that *is* the case, why the need to be highly rant against human
society, The Beatles, their fans, Oasis, fans of gangsta rap/satanic
rock, and John Lennon?
For surely once one's ego is in check, the need to be critical of
others is one of the first negative attributes to disappear?
With best wishes,
Jason Paris
GW
the media and maybe the education system. The Beatles had a big influence,
although their rebellion was indirect. Lennon was a latecomer to politics,
and was considered a seeker at the time of his peak popularity. I don't
know of anyone, including his most dedicated fans, who thought of him as
having all the answers (least of all Lennon, who never pretended to have all
the answers).
So blaming AIDS on Lennon is silly. As for me-first, that has far more to
do with affluence and a relatively peaceful time than it does with anything
else. The pressure is off, so people aren't forced together.
You seem to yearn for some authoritarian setup but I'd like to know which
one. What should people not be allowed to do? As for rock'n'roll as
salvation or rock'n'roll as world-changing, that's stuff out of bad
textbooks. Rock'n'roll could change minds and probably changed some
behavior. In the 60's at least it made people think sometimes. Did it
change everybody? Not a chance. For one thing, the majority never
listened.
"jmc" <jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:as35ms$89a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Tony Evans
<jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote [heavily edited]:
> The basis of our case is that the permissive revolution of the sixties
> was, like all revolutions, a failure which has returned us to the starting
> place, where we "hate the new boss the same as the old boss" and have, in the
> meantime, shed oceans of tears and blood in making a failed point. We
> focus of the figure of John Lennon as he is the figurehead of the whole
> movement, his death made him its patron saint and, most of all, his attitude as an
> individual is as good a place as any to begin looking at what the
> attitude of the movement was, and where it has led us. This we call The Lennon
> Bequest, as his was the guiding spirit of his age.
The so-called Sixties Revolution would have happened with or without
Lennon - he was not the ones responsible for the dissension against the
US involvement in Vietnam, the increasing mistrust of the US government,
the striving for racial equality, the social reaction against the overly
repressive 1950s, or the seeming advantages of socialism and communism.
All the Beatles did was hold up a musical mirror to what was happening.
By the way, if you're going to quote the Who, do it correctly: "Meet the
new boss/same as the old boss"
> The rock music industry, far from being a means of liberation, is become
> a form of control used by the Corporations to limit our intellect, encroach
> upon our sense of individuality & national identity and dull our
> sensibilities - which might otherwise find pleasure in finer musical
> expressions. This the Corporations learned from the unprecedented global
> success of the Beatles (with Elvis as their precursor). The sixties
> showed them the benefits of selling sex, violence and rebellion as a commodity
> and that commodity now feeds the decadence of a society which uses fear to
> control its law-abiding citizens and deliberately stokes the violence of
> the law-breaker (liberal attitudes muddying everyone's waters in the
> process).
It's all Thomas Edison's fault - he invented the phonograph. You don't
think the "Corporations" weren't raking it in from Sinatra, Elvis, Rudy
Vallee, Benny Goodman, Louis Armstrong, etc.? Besides, Mozart, Beethoven
[who you appear to idolize], Bach, and many of the other classical
composers wrote under commission to kings, emperors, clerics, and
wealthy families and individuals - the "Corporations" of their time.
> Few people of discernment would deny that we are now at the fag end of
> rock's ability to achieve - one can trace a line of degradation from John
> Lennon to those thugs the Gallagher brothers from Oasis, whose
> button-pushing, derivative and banal drivel is where we have ended. How
> unlike the dreamed-for developing art-form which the Beatles promised but
> failed to deliver.
Blame Edison again - he provided us with a means to preserve music that
would otherwise get lost in the mists of time. Music by black artists
was once known as "race music" and no "respectable" person would admit
to listening to it. In fact, there was quite a bit of supposedly learned
commentary about how music by blacks was morally and artistically
degenerate and would lead to sex, drinking, unorthodox thoughts, and
other anti-social behavior. There were also many people in the 1950s who
believed Elvis was a horrible, perverse menace.
> The whole idea (which Lennon got from Jimmy Porter in Look Back in Anger)
> that ranting against the world and being anti-authoritarian without being
> constructive was popularised by Lennon and taken as a stance by millions
> of heavily ego-ed persons who, instead of developing themselves spiritually,
> contented themselves with making a mock of others. Part of the Lennon
> Bequest is the moral quagmire of gangster rap and satanic rock, surely.
"All we are saying is give peace a chance"
"When you talk about destruction/don't you know that you can count me
out"
"Say the word and you'll be free"
"Life is very short/and there no time for fussing and fighting my friend"
"All you need is love"
"Imagine all the people living life in peace"
"If you want money for people with minds that hate/
All I can tell is, brother, you'll have to wait"
Sounds pretty constructive to me. Lennon could sometimes be overly
strident and occasionally wrong-headed in his political activism, but he
always stated that he never believed in "isms" and that real change
could only be effected from an individual level.
> Nowadays in the West, there is an all-prevalent idea that art can be made
> not from a combination of talent (genius), study and labour but from
> smoking a joint (or whatever) and letting the mind wander. But one does not
> develop as an artist in such a way - on the contrary, one stalls like Lennon, a
> man who offered nothing in the way of a decent achievement after 1971. He
> couldn't be bothered, and the world at large has taken such scally
> shirking as a cri de coeur, to its eternal detriment.
All-prevalent? I don't think so. One example: Frank Zappa, whose
antisocial and anti-authoritarian attitude often made Lennon look pale
by comparison, shunned drugs, frequently attacked the drug mentality in
his songs, and probably labored just as long and hard at his
compositions as the "classical" composers.
> What is more, Lennon's totally mistaken conviction that Yoko Ono has any real artistic talent or
> anything valid to say has led us into the current conceptual art impasse which
> sees nobodies such as Tracy Emin as worthwhile and people with real abilities
> in painting, composition and vision derided and ignored.
If you think Yoko Ono was the first "anti-artist", you need to brush up
on your art history. Ever heard of the Dadaists?
> The Beatles encouraged drug use, no question. Anyone who has ever taken
> drugs for an extended period of their life will tell you that they "don't
> work" in a big way. Same with sex without love - I Wanna Hold Your Hand
> led directly to the plague of unmarried mother, neglected children and AIDS
> casualties we see in Western societies now. The line from the Beatles to
> the most squalid of crack dens is a direct one and our signpost was Lennon;
> the misery of wasted generation after wasted generation is part of his
> bequest.
Yes, drugs are not good for you. However, neither is alcohol or tobacco.
According to some anthropologists, there is evidence that every
civilization since the dawn of mankind has used some sort of intoxicant.
I bet there were many, many people in the 17th and 18th centuries who
were hooked on opium, which was widely available and legal. The British
even fought wars in China to keep the opium trade going. How many
millions - even billions - of people have rapidly or slowly drunk
themselves to death? The drug problem is nothing new.
Did the Beatles encourage drug use? For a time, yes. So did many other
influential artistic and social figures in the late 60s. By the way
again, it was McCartney who first publically admitted to smoking pot -
not Lennon.
> Even his best songs - Strawberry Fields Forever and Imagine - are mere dreams,
> fantasies and not visions (it would be interesting to see a concordance
> of Beatles lyrics and note how many times the word "dream" appears - I
> doubt if the word vision appears even once).
Dr. Martin Luther King: "I have a dream..."
CYBERFLOYD
> What is more, Lennon's totally mistaken conviction that Yoko Ono has any real
artistic talent <
Another subjective opinion, which begs this question: does *any*
individual on this planet hold the "true and accurate" definition of
Art? If so, how can we be sure that that definition doesn't also
embrace Yoko's creations? >>
Lately I've been toying with the idea that there is no method in which to rank
quality in art. If you like it, it's good. If you don't like it, it sucks. What
else matters?
Craft, the means by which art is expressed, is a separate issue, and more
easily measured. Either one sings well or they don't. Perhaps Yoko Ono doesn't
but her recordings may work on other levels that would qualify them as art--if
you like them.
One could even argue that Paul McCartney's work is all craft masquerading as
art and Yoko is twice the artist Paul is, but that would be an immense chore.
egho tria archidia........
"CYBERFLOYD" <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021128003421...@mb-bh.aol.com...
> <<
> > What is more, Lennon's totally mistaken conviction that Yoko Ono has any
real
> artistic talent <
>
> Another subjective opinion, which begs this question: does *any*
> individual on this planet hold the "true and accurate" definition of
> Art? If so, how can we be sure that that definition doesn't also
> embrace Yoko's creations? >>
>
>
> Lately I've been toying with the idea that there is no method in which to
rank
> quality in art. If you like it, it's good. If you don't like it, it sucks.
What
> else matters?
>
> Craft, the means by which art is expressed, is a separate issue, and more
> easily measured. Either one sings well or they don't. Perhaps Yoko Ono
doesn't
> but her recordings may work on other levels that would qualify them as
art--if
> you like them.
thanks for elucidating what should be pretty bloody obvious, but isn't, for
so many people on so many levels.........:)
> One could even argue that Paul McCartney's work is all craft masquerading
as
> art and Yoko is twice the artist Paul is, but that would be an immense
chore.
still, its an interesting notion.
David P Chabot
thread... this is exactly the kind of discussion that is needed today among
all peoples to clear the air of ... well just all the crappy ideas that are
out there... that's not a very clear statement but I hope everyone
understands what I mean... a RATIONAL discussion about the real world that
we ALL live in... the funny thing is that the original post was laying all
the BAD THINGS at the feet of the Beatles... and here again because of our
LOVE of the Beatles... we are engaging in a discusion (DREAM?) that I think
is VERY POSITIVE... THANK YOU EVERYONE... you have made it a very thankful
HAPPY THANKSGIVING DAY for me... and I'm sure for others...
jmc
> For surely once one's ego is in check, the need to be critical of
> others is one of the first negative attributes to disappear?
>
Dear Jason,
Believe me, the post was a raising of questions and formulations which
myself and a group of friends have been feeling re a set of attitudes which
came about in the 60s and now define popular culture - we call them The
Lennon Bequest, for the reasons I stated.
And whilst I fully acknowledge that I am in no way at a stage of loss of my
ego, I do believe that it is right to occasionally question given
assumptions about the world we are confronted with. If that is being
critical, then so be it. But even Jesus criticised the Pharisees...
You are right that a lot of the things I mention are the responsibilities of
individuals. But my point is that these things are not the fault of the
Beatles but of a set of attitudes which grew out of the Beatles and their
time. That is all.
jmc
> one. What should people not be allowed to do?
No no no!!! - no authoritarianism but Liberty rather than license, that is
all.
jmc
> "When you talk about destruction/don't you know that you can count me
> out"
> "Say the word and you'll be free"
> "Life is very short/and there no time for fussing and fighting my friend"
> "All you need is love"
> "Imagine all the people living life in peace"
> "If you want money for people with minds that hate/
> All I can tell is, brother, you'll have to wait"
mere soundbites and not constructive at all.
David P Chabot
what John wanted to communicate... and very positive too... where is all the
NEGATIVITY in these quotes from the lyrics of the Beatles? Do you also
relegate "Thou shalt not kill" to a mere soundbite?
GW
recordings. Read Lewisohn's Beatle Sessions before you judge anyone as
"lazy". You can argue about the profundity of what was produced; you can
argue about all the knob-fiddling versus live jazz or great composers but
you sure can't accuse the Beatles of laziness.
Many great composers often composed in fits of inspiration and then went
through long dry periods. Not a bad description of Lennon's career.
Finally, you're either an artist or you're not an artist. You're born with
it. That's Woody Allen's take and I believe it. As long as there is
equipment to play disks with, Lennon will be counted among the artists.
There are a bazillion wannabes who work like crazy and never produce a
fraction of the enduring works he left.
"jmc" <jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:as35ms$89a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> The following is the first flowering of some thoughts and ideas which
myself
> and some friends have been formulating as we wake from the sixties dream
and
> are released from the illusion that rock'n'roll is some sacred and
wonderful
> thing which has enriched people's lives and led us into a better world.
>
> The basis of our case is that the permissive revolution of the sixties
was,
> like all revolutions, a failure which has returned us to the starting
place,
> where we "hate the new boss the same as the old boss" and have, in the
> meantime, shed oceans of tears and blood in making a failed point. We
focus
> of the figure of John Lennon as he is the figurehead of the whole
movement,
> his death made him its patron saint and, most of all, his attitude as an
> individual is as good a place as any to begin looking at what the attitude
> of the movement was, and where it has led us. This we call The Lennon
> Bequest, as his was the guiding spirit of his age.
>
> I am not wholly concerned with the quality (or otherwise) of the music.
That
> Lennon/McCartney as a team produced some of the greatest, most enduring
and
> most innovative pop songs there is no doubt. I would, however, question
the
> extent of such an achievement in the context of the world's cultural
history
> and the Beatles' popularly supposed place in it: it was merely pop music,
> and lacks the complexity, depth of spiritual content and achievement in
> composition of music further up the hierarchic scale. Simply put, beside
> Mozart and Beethoven, for example, the Beatles are "very small" (to quote
> their own Within You Without You). And whilst it will be argued that such
> comparisons are odious, I would say that the very post-modern (and
> post-sixties) refusal to see that some things are intrinsically on a
higher
> level of achievement than others is itself part of the Lennon bequest. As
is
> the rock music industry itself.
>
> The rock music industry, far from being a means of liberation, is become a
> form of control used by the Corporations to limit our intellect, encroach
> upon our sense of individuality & national identity and dull our
> sensibilities - which might otherwise find pleasure in finer musical
> expressions. This the Corporations learned from the unprecedented global
> success of the Beatles (with Elvis as their precursor). The sixties showed
> them the benefits of selling sex, violence and rebellion as a commodity
and
> that commodity now feeds the decadence of a society which uses fear to
> control its law-abiding citizens and deliberately stokes the violence of
the
> law-breaker (liberal attitudes muddying everyone's waters in the process).
> Few people of discernment would deny that we are now at the fag end of
> rock's ability to achieve - one can trace a line of degradation from John
> Lennon to those thugs the Gallagher brothers from Oasis, whose
> button-pushing, derivative and banal drivel is where we have ended. How
> unlike the dreamed-for developing art-form which the Beatles promised but
> failed to deliver.
>
> I cannot leave Lennon's personality out of the mix, purely because it has
> had such a cultural effect. A recent BBC panegyric described him as
"Ghandi
> with a sense of humour". We would be better off thinking of him as a
> football hooligan with a talent for playing guitar, a restless sense of
> curiosity and a very hungry ego (to mention nothing of his infantilism).
The
> whole idea (which Lennon got from Jimmy Porter in Look Back in Anger) that
> ranting against the world and being anti-authoritarian without being
> constructive was popularised by Lennon and taken as a stance by millions
of
> heavily ego-ed persons who, instead of developing themselves spiritually,
> contented themselves with making a mock of others. Part of the Lennon
> Bequest is the moral quagmire of gangster rap and satanic rock, surely.
>
> Nowadays in the West, there is an all-prevalent idea that art can be made
> not from a combination of talent (genius), study and labour but from
smoking
> a joint (or whatever) and letting the mind wander. But one does not
develop
> as an artist in such a way - on the contrary, one stalls like Lennon, a
man
> who offered nothing in the way of a decent achievement after 1971. He
> couldn't be bothered, and the world at large has taken such scally
shirking
> as a cri de coeur, to its eternal detriment. What is more, Lennon's
totally
> mistaken conviction that Yoko Ono has any real artistic talent or anything
> valid to say has led us into the current conceptual art impasse which sees
> nobodies such as Tracy Emin as worthwhile and people with real abilities
in
> painting, composition and vision derided and ignored. One can almost see
the
> Tate Modern as a vast mausoleum of the sixties dream, wherein the State
> instead of Apple is giving any gabby chancer the funded opportunity to
> purvey their charlatan wares.
>
> The Beatles encouraged drug use, no question. Anyone who has ever taken
> drugs for an extended period of their life will tell you that they "don't
> work" in a big way. Same with sex without love - I Wanna Hold Your Hand
led
> directly to the plague of unmarried mother, neglected children and AIDS
> casualties we see in Western societies now. The line from the Beatles to
the
> most squalid of crack dens is a direct one and our signpost was Lennon;
the
> misery of wasted generation after wasted generation is part of his
bequest.
>
> The world appears to be fast sputtering towards extinction, polluted not
> only by industrial emissions but by the darkness of the angry energies
many
> of us manifest daily. The ego is running rampant, an ego which was the
only
> thing John Lennon believed in (one can trace a direct line from his
couplet
> "I just believe in me / Yoko and Me" to Thatcher's aphorism "there is no
> such thing as society, just individual men and women and families). Even
his
> best songs - Strawberry Fields Forever and Imagine - are mere dreams,
> fantasies and not visions (it would be interesting to see a concordance of
> Beatles lyrics and note how many times the word "dream" appears - I doubt
> if the word vision appears even once). As Bob Dylan says, "You've got some
> big dreams, baby / but you know, to dream you gotta still be asleep".
>
> The Lennon Bequest is generations of lost souls, only sleeping, drifting
> downstream into nightmares which we all better wake up from pretty soon.
Or
> else.
>
> (By the way, I acknowledge that Harrison, alone of the Beatles, at least
saw
> that what the Beatles had created was mere illusion, dreams and fantasies
in
> clouds - surely the title Cloud 9 is a dig at the Lennon Bequest, 9 being
> Lennon's fateful number and the cloud surely being the cloud of unkowing -
> and pointed towards loss of ego as a way of getting us out of this mess.
> Good on him!)
>
>
>
>
jmc
Do you also
> relegate "Thou shalt not kill" to a mere soundbite?
>
of any context) and aphorisms, which are powerful statements of specifically
applicable truth.
IMO Beatles/Lennon are a soundbite band. Dylan, on the other hand, is full
of aphorisms. As was, in fact, Jesus.
jmc
with
> it. That's Woody Allen's take and I believe it. As long as there is
> equipment to play disks with, Lennon will be counted among the artists.
> There are a bazillion wannabes who work like crazy and never produce a
> fraction of the enduring works he left.
>
genius and study and practise. It may have been true that in the Beatles
Lennon was hard working (tho not nearly as hard working as George Martin,
who deserves more credit than he gets) but post-1971 he was lazy and didn't
develop in any way, shape or form.
Greg Panfile
jmc wrote:
> we wake from the sixties dream and
> are released from the illusion that rock'n'roll is some sacred and
wonderful
> thing which has enriched people's lives and led us into a better world.
to awaken from an illusion is a good thing, though i think the time place
and manner of the awakening is pertinent, because it does little good to
awaken from one illusion into another. it remains true that all art has
some capacity to do those wonderful things. when it does not, the fault may
lie in the artist, in the perceiver, or in both. in our rock stars, and in
ourselves.
> The basis of our case is that the permissive revolution of the sixties
was,
> like all revolutions, a failure which has returned us to the starting
place,
> where we "hate the new boss the same as the old boss" and have, in the
> meantime, shed oceans of tears and blood in making a failed point. We
focus
> of the figure of John Lennon as he is the figurehead of the whole
movement,
> his death made him its patron saint and, most of all, his attitude as an
> individual is as good a place as any to begin looking at what the attitude
> of the movement was, and where it has led us. This we call The Lennon
> Bequest, as his was the guiding spirit of his age.
the above continues to overvalue Lennon individually and the Beatles
collectively, but in a negative rather than positive sense, swinging like a
pendulum do.
> I am not wholly concerned with the quality (or otherwise) of the music.
That
> Lennon/McCartney as a team produced some of the greatest, most enduring
and
> most innovative pop songs there is no doubt. I would, however, question
the
> extent of such an achievement in the context of the world's cultural
history
> and the Beatles' popularly supposed place in it: it was merely pop music,
> and lacks the complexity, depth of spiritual content and achievement in
> composition of music further up the hierarchic scale. Simply put, beside
> Mozart and Beethoven, for example, the Beatles are "very small" (to quote
> their own Within You Without You). And whilst it will be argued that such
> comparisons are odious, I would say that the very post-modern (and
> post-sixties) refusal to see that some things are intrinsically on a
higher
> level of achievement than others is itself part of the Lennon bequest. As
is
> the rock music industry itself.
there is some truth to this but it is difficult to get at objectively.
perhaps the technology to prove it is somewhere in the future. what
interests me here is that john lennon said essentially these things a number
of times, notably during the playboy interviews, and is not given credit for
it here.
> The rock music industry, far from being a means of liberation, is become a
> form of control used by the Corporations to limit our intellect, encroach
> upon our sense of individuality & national identity and dull our
> sensibilities - which might otherwise find pleasure in finer musical
> expressions. This the Corporations learned from the unprecedented global
> success of the Beatles (with Elvis as their precursor). The sixties showed
> them the benefits of selling sex, violence and rebellion as a commodity
and
> that commodity now feeds the decadence of a society which uses fear to
> control its law-abiding citizens and deliberately stokes the violence of
the
> law-breaker (liberal attitudes muddying everyone's waters in the process).
> Few people of discernment would deny that we are now at the fag end of
> rock's ability to achieve - one can trace a line of degradation from John
> Lennon to those thugs the Gallagher brothers from Oasis, whose
> button-pushing, derivative and banal drivel is where we have ended. How
> unlike the dreamed-for developing art-form which the Beatles promised but
> failed to deliver.
the corporations sold us the beatles in the first place in order to make
money, and they did. that the beatles subverted or transcended this process
at all is the wonder. nowadays no one is even trying, and such people can
be faulted for lack of effort... then again, they may be avoiding that
confrontation because they know it is impossible to win, at least at this
point. corporations are us, and our friends and relatives and
acquaintances, not alien invaders. they succeed because we buy their stuff.
> I cannot leave Lennon's personality out of the mix, purely because it has
> had such a cultural effect. A recent BBC panegyric described him as
"Ghandi
> with a sense of humour". We would be better off thinking of him as a
> football hooligan with a talent for playing guitar, a restless sense of
> curiosity and a very hungry ego (to mention nothing of his infantilism).
The
> whole idea (which Lennon got from Jimmy Porter in Look Back in Anger) that
> ranting against the world and being anti-authoritarian without being
> constructive was popularised by Lennon and taken as a stance by millions
of
> heavily ego-ed persons who, instead of developing themselves spiritually,
> contented themselves with making a mock of others. Part of the Lennon
> Bequest is the moral quagmire of gangster rap and satanic rock, surely.
lennon made many attempts to approach this issue constructively and they all
failed... partly due to his human frailties, partly due to those of others.
drugs and radical politics were some of the methods attempted, but so were
overt materialism, couple cocooning, therapies of various sorts, and at
least one cultlike, somewhat conventional religion. and it would not be
rock and roll without some physical release of frustration, excess energy,
what have you. ranting is a phase, one needs to feel and express intense
emotion in order to later be able to think clearly, they can't be done at
the same time. and there is no free lunch nowhere. the fact that
participation in beatlemania is a social and tribal phenomenon that evokes
the exact same feelings and behaviors as that of any sort of family is most
trenchant. many found in the beatles what their own relatives and
institutions were failing to provide... there's a logical flaw in then
blaming the beatles for weakening those very institutions. that lennon and
the group did not fulfill our childish notions that these uncles/brothers
would save the world and lead us to enlightenment or whatever is as much our
fault as theirs, and also part of the blame has to be put onto the
corruption, dishonesty, self-seeking and other behaviors clearly manifest
throughout history by all political, religious, and other leaders and the
structures they created or inherited.
> Nowadays in the West, there is an all-prevalent idea that art can be made
> not from a combination of talent (genius), study and labour but from
smoking
> a joint (or whatever) and letting the mind wander. But one does not
develop
> as an artist in such a way - on the contrary, one stalls like Lennon, a
man
> who offered nothing in the way of a decent achievement after 1971. He
> couldn't be bothered, and the world at large has taken such scally
shirking
> as a cri de coeur, to its eternal detriment. What is more, Lennon's
totally
> mistaken conviction that Yoko Ono has any real artistic talent or anything
> valid to say has led us into the current conceptual art impasse which sees
> nobodies such as Tracy Emin as worthwhile and people with real abilities
in
> painting, composition and vision derided and ignored. One can almost see
the
> Tate Modern as a vast mausoleum of the sixties dream, wherein the State
> instead of Apple is giving any gabby chancer the funded opportunity to
> purvey their charlatan wares.
there is some truth to this, but consider the converse which is equally
prevalent if not moreso... the pursuit of profit in entertainment based on
formulas, demographics and so on. the fourth sequel to aladdin, released by
disney direct to dvd using one of the only 36 possible plot formulations,
assembled by a committee of bureaucratic artists on salary... and doesn't
the public share some blame for allowing all this to happen?
> The Beatles encouraged drug use, no question. Anyone who has ever taken
> drugs for an extended period of their life will tell you that they "don't
> work" in a big way. Same with sex without love - I Wanna Hold Your Hand
led
> directly to the plague of unmarried mother, neglected children and AIDS
> casualties we see in Western societies now. The line from the Beatles to
the
> most squalid of crack dens is a direct one and our signpost was Lennon;
the
> misery of wasted generation after wasted generation is part of his
bequest.
i seem to recall several generations being lost in various ways before
lennon had anything to do about it... a couple of world wars, a plague, some
crusades, a few collapsed empires, various religious and sectarian jihads.
many of the wrongs cited above are directly connected to the liberation of
women... giving them the same power and opportunity for abuse of same
traditionally reserved for men. there is no free lunch, again. certainly
there is a better way, one that is not as radical as the taliban/oppression
alternative, but again, that would require improvements in human nature,
both male and female, which happen in geological, physical time, not in real
time. the romans had sex without love, and collapsed; they were replaced in
large part by a clerical hierarchy that gave us the dark ages, inquisitions,
slaughters, and abuses of power, some sexual, that continue to the present
day.
> The world appears to be fast sputtering towards extinction, polluted not
> only by industrial emissions but by the darkness of the angry energies
many
> of us manifest daily. The ego is running rampant, an ego which was the
only
> thing John Lennon believed in (one can trace a direct line from his
couplet
> "I just believe in me / Yoko and Me" to Thatcher's aphorism "there is no
> such thing as society, just individual men and women and families). Even
his
> best songs - Strawberry Fields Forever and Imagine - are mere dreams,
> fantasies and not visions (it would be interesting to see a concordance of
> Beatles lyrics and note how many times the word "dream" appears - I doubt
> if the word vision appears even once). As Bob Dylan says, "You've got some
> big dreams, baby / but you know, to dream you gotta still be asleep".
one is reminded of that ancient hieroglyphic from egypt about the world
going to hell in a handbasket because young people do not respect their
elders and maintain the old traditions and so forth... and i believe hitler
himself wrote words to that effect. when the beatles were born, the world
was sputtering toward extinction, and were it not for some bad tactics the
nazis could easily have won the war. there would then have been no beatles.
similarly, it is inconceivable to me that beatlemania would have happened
if, let's say, president eisenhower had taken the advice, presented daily
and strenuously in the early nineteen fifties, of john von neumann (the
smartest man in the world at the time, responsible for inventing the single
instruction computer and the intercontinental ballistic missile) to strike
the soviet union first with nuclear weapons. in 1962 my classmates and i,
ages 11-12, watched the possibility of nuclear holocaust unfold at school in
real time on tv during the cuban missile crisis... no beatles, still
sputtering toward extinction. same for late 1963 when the president was
shot on film, his assasin was shot on live tv, and what exactly went on was
of immediate impact but difficult to determine or understand. the beatles
offered some good sounds and an escape fantasy to a post-traumatic
high-anxiety culture unable to control its own impulses and technologies.
they were not trying to solve those problems at the time, and were not
capable of doing so even when they tried. but that is everyone's fault, not
just theirs. as george states in the anthology, we used them as an excuse
to go daft... now we are to blame them for that?
> The Lennon Bequest is generations of lost souls, only sleeping, drifting
> downstream into nightmares which we all better wake up from pretty soon.
Or
> else.
yes, but the timing and manner of the awakening, presuming there can be one,
is of paramount importance. there are millions, even billions of people who
agree with much of what jmc has written above... two such classes would be
the christians in america who believe we are about to fulfill a biblical
prophecy by participating in a nuclear war in the mideast that will lead to
the extermination of everyone but true believing christians, who will ascend
directly into heaven; and muslims in various countries who believe that such
a war will happen but they will win and restore the caliphate and a
worldwide koranic paradise. there was and is certainly a large amount of
fuzzy thought, both drug-induced and organic, in the mythos of the beatles.
there is a damn lot of fuzzy thought outside of it as well, some of which,
at least, is far more dangerous.
> (By the way, I acknowledge that Harrison, alone of the Beatles, at least
saw
> that what the Beatles had created was mere illusion, dreams and fantasies
in
> clouds - surely the title Cloud 9 is a dig at the Lennon Bequest, 9 being
> Lennon's fateful number and the cloud surely being the cloud of unkowing -
> and pointed towards loss of ego as a way of getting us out of this mess.
> Good on him!)
one is tempted to agree that in the end, as the story is so far, that george
got the farthest, got it the most. on the other hand it also seems true
that he was somewhat in the grip of a set of beliefs that were on the one
hand just another conventional religion, on the other hand somewhat cultic
and magical. not that there's anything wrong with that;-).
what interests me about all this is that there is no one lennon bequest...
the views taken above by both jmc and me are based on how events have
unfolded; had history been different, we would probably both have different
views... and it seems to me that much of how history unfolded has little if
anything to do with the lennon bequest itself. how things go in the next 22
years will determine to a great extent how the lennon bequest is viewed
then... which means what? interesting notion.
the matter of how to transcend human frailties in order to optimize human
potential is a complex and intriguing one that in essence seems insoluble by
the human intellect. i personally have devoted some amount of bandwidth to
it for over thirty years and as a result i believe and "know" far less than
i did when i started out. talk about no free lunch, and the conflict
between truth and emotion... one wants the truth and to feel better, to know
and to win, and the two agendas are often in conflict. in this sense, we
have made lennon into a god in our own image, into a ruler we use to measure
our pain and our pleasure as well, as it suits our immediate needs, as it
fits into some intellectual and emotional matrix that has some objective
truth to it but is also an internally generated delusion. the type of
vilification and minimization engaged in by debunkers is in some sense the
same process as the deification generated by hero worshippers; the absolute
value of the number is the same, but the sign is changed to fit a set of
feelings that originate outside of the phenomenon being discussed.
in essence, there seem to be only three general attitudes toward
transcendance and a notion of god:
1. total rejection in favor of one's own ego, which flies in the face of
many human traditions of wide acceptance and leaves an emotional void at the
very least.
2. approach through an intermediary institution of some sort, whether a
philosophy, a religion, or a cult of some sort. all such institutions
converge on a standard set of tribal behaviors, hierarchical power
structures, and other natural human dysfunctional tendencies that seem
inescapable and are best seen as rooted in our evolutionary legacy.
3. piecing it all together oneself and approaching the matter directly with
a combination of intuition and intellect and emotion, drawing on various
sources and essentially trying to invent the wheel on one's own. this is a
lonely path and leaves various social and emotional needs totally unmet, is
obviously very inefficient, and has the flaw of being a one-off at best.
it seems to me that at various points the beatles tried all three of the
above and none of them worked. that also seems true of humanity as a whole
as well, me absolutely included. at this point we clearly do not know
enough to save ourselves, or we would have. thus for now it is probable
that the best we can do, and even this one is iffy, is avoid destroying
ourselves before we find out whatever we need to, if we are even meant to.
it is precisely those institutions and systems of thought which do not
recognize this... who feel as if they already know the answers... that are
most likely to lead to precisely that destruction. i am reminded of
something i once read...
"you are close to disaster at two times: when you feel you are right, and
when you feel you are wrong."
...which does not even account for moments like now, when one feels both;-).
war looms, perhaps the last, and in the midst of our thanksgiving table sits
a flaming pie of blame that will not disappear until we all eat our piece.
pass the whipped cream.
website: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze4932g/panfile.html
MP3s: http://gregpanfile.dmusic.com/
Mister Charlie
>
> > For surely once one's ego is in check, the need to be critical of
> > others is one of the first negative attributes to disappear?
> >
> > Jason Paris
>
> Dear Jason,
>
> Believe me, the post was a raising of questions and formulations which
> myself and a group of friends have been feeling re a set of attitudes
which
> came about in the 60s and now define popular culture - we call them
The
> Lennon Bequest, for the reasons I stated.
>
> And whilst I fully acknowledge that I am in no way at a stage of loss
of my
> ego, I do believe that it is right to occasionally question given
> assumptions about the world we are confronted with. If that is being
> critical, then so be it. But even Jesus criticised the Pharisees...
>
> You are right that a lot of the things I mention are the
responsibilities of
> individuals. But my point is that these things are not the fault of
the
> Beatles but of a set of attitudes which grew out of the Beatles and
their
> time. That is all.
>
meant. I'm not sure I quite believe that, given the detail with which
you laid everything since then squarely at their feet.
Nevertheless, if true, then one can see where my reaction came from
(perhaps a bit more strident than necessary but the absurdity that I and
others perceived was overwhelming).
Attitudes. Good word.
David P Chabot
of going to hell in a handbasket and spiraling into oblivion... all of that
is true... it's like a global death wish... but it seems to me that
Christianity is PARTIALLY to blame with all these prophecies of doom and
destruction... and as we look at our world they are becoming SELF FULLFILLED
prophecies. I personally do not believe them... but many (!) people do...
"Imagine there's no heaven... it's easy if you try..." With a change of
current attitudes, we COULD save the world... I just think that many of us
believe it's not worth saving... They will get their REWARD in
heaven...(?)... I got mine right now.
jmc
"Greg Panfile" <greg.p...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:LNsF9.1013$%r6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> or, it really don't come easy, do it?
>
couldn't be more pleased that it caused you to post your views, which are
intelligent, well argued and spiritually insightful. A big thanks for that!
jmc
> meant. I'm not sure I quite believe that, given the detail with which
> you laid everything since then squarely at their feet.
>
> Nevertheless, if true, then one can see where my reaction came from
> (perhaps a bit more strident than necessary but the absurdity that I and
> others perceived was overwhelming).
>
> Attitudes. Good word.
It is true - and believe me, I have quite enough Beatles records in my
collection to qualify for posting feelings about them, their attitudes and
their legacy without being called a troll (Not even sure what that is...)
robertandrews
news:253370b9.02112...@posting.google.com...
>My point being this: Music simply *is*.
Is *not.* The music we're discussing is created by people -- it doesn't
come out of thin air. Some opinions about music are more informed than
others. For example, John Lennon sings according to Western standards. If
he tried to sing in tune & failed, most of us would find his missed notes
grating on the ear. That broadly agreed upon intonation -- an "accord" in
both a musical & philosophical sense -- forms a basis of communication
between the artist & the audience, & one aspect of music criticism.
>It's generally an intuitive, non-rational affection.
If there's nothing to discuss about one's affection for music, then why
visit a music newsgroup? Intuition plays a big role in music, but by itself
it's nada mucho.
>I'm becoming repetitive, but:
* drug usage
* loveless sex
* child neglect
* to be a recipient/transmitter of AIDS
..... are again the *choice* of the people involved.
Babies can be born with AIDS or addicted to drugs, anyone can contract AIDS
from an infected blood transfusion. Few children choose to be neglected,
abused or dangled over a balcony. Neither is "loveless sex" always a matter
of choice. People rarely choose to be poorly educated, & many of our social
problems are the result of bad education & the deliberate preaching of
ignorance.
You sound like someone who (allegedly) loves all humanity, but nobody in
particular. Jesus hated a whole bunch of stuff. I heard Buddha hated liver
& onions.
>For surely once one's ego is in check, the need to be critical of others is
one of the first negative attributes to disappear?
You've just been very critical of jmc's post - was that a result of ego or
the divine spark inside your soul?
Pure subjectivity is just as ridiculous as pure objectivity.
ROBBIE
"Yves de Repentigny" <dere...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b8654cb.02112...@posting.google.com...
> Christopher Jepson <cje...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:<3DE52460...@mail.med.upenn.edu>...
> which is really an evolution, and is continuing. We were all on this
> ship - a ship going to discover the New World. And the Beatles were in
> the crow's nest".
The Beatles were in the crow's nest eh? This 'Beatles as seers' is a very
crumbly argument. MacCartney, wisely, remained a songwriter where Lennon
decided to live up to a seer's role and didn't do it very well- I always
used to find his peace 'campaigning' rather endearing; these days he appears
to me to have been a bit of a prat, an overgrown teenager- underread and
over mouthy with no real idea of how life was for 'real' people (don't
forget, he was never in the 'real' world and certainly abusing alcohol and
drugs from teenage years until 35 if not to the end)
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
>
> Interesting post. I hope to discuss a number of points with you.
>
> > I would, however, question the extent of such an achievement in the
context of the world's cultural history and the Beatles' popularly supposed
place in it: it was merely pop music.... <
>
> Indeed. And the works of Mozart and Beethoven are merely "Classical
> music".
>
> To confer "cultural significance" upon a particular object (whether it
> be Pop Music, Classical Music, or toothpaste) is merely the expression
> of one's *subjective opinion*.
>
> My point being this: Music simply *is*. It's not "significant"
> within itself, nor is it objectively significant relative to anything
> else.
>
> It's the *subjective opinion* of the beholder that confers
> significance upon Music (and everything else, for that matter). And
> that significance resides *entirely* the the mind of beholder.
>
> Therefore, objectively, Classical is of no greater signficance than
> Pop, and vice versa. They both just "are".
>
> So why be critical? ;-)
You stupid fucking hippy....
>
> > ... and lacks the complexity, depth of spiritual content and achievement
in composition of music further up the hierarchic scale.<
>
> Are relative "complexity" and "achievement" the most admirable
> qualities of a musical creation? If so, upon whose authority?
You're being obtuse and a typical product of the Lennon Bequest- simple,
infantile art is on the same level with a complex work that has been created
with rigour, passion and knowledge. This is not true, but certainly a tenet
of the Lennon Bequest. It *has* to be or three quarters or more of the
world's 'music artists' would be regarded as useless.
ROBBIE
Art is a specialist field. The Lennon Bequest however, says that any cunt
can offer up an opinion. Just like you've done in this mail. When people who
start to reject a Canon of work that they only know an infinestimal amount
about ie music, art, literature begin to offer their own half-baked opinions
up, one instantly knows what they are worth: diddley squat. You a Pink Floyd
fan? If you aren't you fucking sound like one.
Jason Paris
> Lately I've been toying with the idea that there is no method in which to rank
> quality in art. If you like it, it's good. If you don't like it, it sucks. What
> else matters?
Precisely what I was trying to express. That EVERYTHING is in the eye
(or ear!) of the beholder.
If one confers greater significance on the music of Britney Spears
than The Beatles, that's perfectly OK. One's own internal criterion
is the only definitive measure of what's "good", "significant" or
"important".
> Craft, the means by which art is expressed, is a separate issue, and more
> easily measured. Either one sings well or they don't.
I would disagree, and suggest that that too is a subjective opinion -
in the ear of the beholder.
> One could even argue that Paul McCartney's work is all craft masquerading as
> art and Yoko is twice the artist Paul is, but that would be an immense chore.
And the results - as you've suggested - would ultimately be
subjective. Which, again, is perfectly OK...... for the beholder.
Not quite OK, however, for those who seek *objective* evidence of
artistic superiority! ;-)
All the best,
Jason
ROBBIE
"GW" <gwal...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8QgF9.24855$pa7.2...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> Why'd you single out John Lennon? You're getting an inaccurate account
from
> the media and maybe the education system. The Beatles had a big
influence,
> although their rebellion was indirect. Lennon was a latecomer to
politics,
> and was considered a seeker at the time of his peak popularity. I don't
> know of anyone, including his most dedicated fans, who thought of him as
> having all the answers (least of all Lennon, who never pretended to have
all
> the answers).
>
> So blaming AIDS on Lennon is silly. As for me-first, that has far more to
> do with affluence and a relatively peaceful time than it does with
anything
> else. The pressure is off, so people aren't forced together.
>
> You seem to yearn for some authoritarian setup but I'd like to know which
> one. What should people not be allowed to do? As for rock'n'roll as
> salvation or rock'n'roll as world-changing, that's stuff out of bad
> textbooks. Rock'n'roll could change minds and probably changed some
> behavior. In the 60's at least it made people think sometimes. Did it
> change everybody? Not a chance. For one thing, the majority never
> listened.
Jmc's argument can only be effectivley elucidated at book-length and I think
he has the basis of the book! As Beatles fans are so fond of knowing, the
Beatles *did* change the world- unfortunately they didn't change the music
business and pop music, once a pleasant opiate is now a remorseless torture
inflicted by Corporations.
Lennon licensed infantile loser-ism whilst being a howling success, sound
familiar? Its yer Rock and Roll Archetype to which many have aspired: from
boozy violence and wife beating to pot dabbling to acid meltdown and the
foetal cop out of smack; the trick of having nothing but a savvy gob and a
few chords and ending up King of the World worked well for him but the plan
is subject to that old diminishing return law. Oasis are in a 'History is
first time tragedy, Second time Farce' dialectic with the Beatles.
ROBBIE
> One more thing: you have no idea how much effort went into Beatle
> recordings. Read Lewisohn's Beatle Sessions before you judge anyone as
> "lazy". You can argue about the profundity of what was produced; you can
> argue about all the knob-fiddling versus live jazz or great composers but
> you sure can't accuse the Beatles of laziness.
>
> Many great composers often composed in fits of inspiration and then went
> through long dry periods. Not a bad description of Lennon's career.
>
> Finally, you're either an artist or you're not an artist. You're born
with
> it. That's Woody Allen's take and I believe it. As long as there is
> equipment to play disks with, Lennon will be counted among the artists.
> There are a bazillion wannabes who work like crazy and never produce a
> fraction of the enduring works he left.
That has everything to do with how music is marketed and distributed and
little to do with Lennon's supposed genius.
D East
> > mistaken conviction that Yoko Ono has any real artistic talent or
anything
> > valid to say has led us into the current conceptual art impasse which
sees
> > nobodies such as Tracy Emin as worthwhile and people with real abilities
in
> > painting, composition and vision derided and ignored. One can almost see
the
> > Tate Modern as a vast mausoleum of the sixties dream, wherein the State
> > instead of Apple is giving any gabby chancer the funded opportunity to
> > purvey their charlatan wares.
Plenty of people have responded to the rest, but I'd like to make a few
comments here.
The art world has never been some kind of entirely privileged arena where
people with real abilities expressed their vision freely. Since the earliest
times it has lived both within and in contention with commerce - sponsors,
patrons, buyers, establishments - more recently galleries and agents and so
on and on. Many great artists have felt undervalued over the centuries. This
isn't new.
Where is this "conceptual art impasse"? Certainly not in the artists I know
and the shows I see.
It's worth remembering that many, many artists over the last century (long
before the 1960s) have believed *painting* to be at an impasse, at the end
of the road; but it keeps coming back, in new and interesting ways. And Yoko
Ono, whatever Lennon may have thought, has never been much of an influence
on contemporary artists; I've spoken to some of them, and read interviews
with many more, and her name has hardly ever come up. In fact, in a way,
marrying John reduced her influence, I think; she was always seen as halfway
to being a rock star, which is not good for anyone's artistic credibility.
Right now in London you can see intriguing contemporary art by Rachel
Whiteread (not as good as some of her previous work, but still beautiful,
contemplative and meaningful), Douglas Gordon, Graham Day, Steven Campbell,
Julian Opie, Anthony Gormley (the Field of little figures, and drawings) -
these are just a few artists, exhibited now, that spring to mind. I don't
especially like everything by everyone on this little list, in fact some I
dislike quite a lot, but I can't imagine anyone could actually look at the
art that is being made now and say we're in some kind of "conceptual
impasse". Lots of it isn't "conceptual" in any sense other than that in
which most art is concerned on some level with ideas as well as things;
anyway, in conceptual art as any other field, there are better and worse
artists - the good ones have made work that speaks of the impasses that it
faces, and of many other profound and important things.
Specifically on the Tate Modern: I've certainly had my complaints about the
building, its exhibitions and its collections. But to dismiss it as some
kind of mausoleum is absurd. Firstly, the collections go back to the start
of the century - long before the supposedly disastrous 1960s or
conceptualism. There is much that is beautiful in the most conventional
sense of vision and composition. The room with Rothko's Seagram paintings
gives me a greater sense of the spiritual than most of the nominally
religious buildings I've been in recently. The Tate, also, doesn't give much
to "gabby chancers"; nearly every artist it has bought will have worked his
or her way through the whole morass of commercial galleries, commissions,
etc.
And, right now, at the Tate Modern there is an exhibition of the work of Eva
Hesse (made between 1961 and 1970) that is beautiful, thoughtful, witty,
visionary and, yes, spiritual. Go and see it, if you can, before it closes
in March.
Darren
ROBBIE
ideas delivered in obtuse ways. Hirst, Emin, Lucas- all shit and in Tate
Modern.
"D East" <darre...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:as6av...@enews2.newsguy.com...
ROBBIE
"robertandrews" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gccF9.49167$mL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "jmc" <jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I would, however, question the extent of such an achievement in the
context
> of the world's cultural history and the Beatles' popularly supposed place
in
>
> Transcended pop music. And The Beatles drew from many different forms &
> styles.
>
> >and lacks the complexity, . . .
>
> Incorrect.
>
> >depth of spiritual content
>
> I think the Beatles are incredibly "spiritual" (if that means a damn
thing).
Could you enlarge this point?
>
> >and achievement in composition of music further up the hierarchic scale.
>
> Incorrect.
and this?
>
> >Simply put, beside Mozart and Beethoven, for example, the Beatles are
"very
> small"
>
> Or "very large," depending on one's musical taste.
One of the things I've noticed in this thread is that there is an idea that
one's own opinion is good. This is fine on a 'I like it/I don't like' level,
but as to establishing an artist's place in the canon of the world's arts,
it's useless. Part of the Lennon Bequest however, is that knowledge is
degraded and 'feeling' placed higher ('..expert textpert.')
>
> >The sixties showed them the benefits of selling sex . . .
>
> "And isn't it time Congress did something about Mae West?"
> ~ William Randolph Hearst
'Me and John knew what we were doing, we wrote 'I love to turn you on' we
knew what we were doing' - Paul MacCartney
>
> " . . . violence"
>
> Religion sold that, thousands of years before Beatles. People are still
> killing for their Gods, or so they claim.
>
> " . . . and rebellion"
>
> Sex, drugs & rockin' music are as old as the hills.
Yea and we ought to discuss them- how they've never been done so badly and
on such a huge scale as in the wake of the Beatles, and the Beatles were the
very definition of the sixties, they do have a legacy.
>
> >We would be better off thinking of him as a football hooligan with a
talent
> for playing guitar, . . .
>
> Lennon was one of the great artists of our times, & maybe for all times.
> Tremendous songwriter, musician, singer & performer.
A more truthful view may be: He was an average guitarist, a plodding
pianist, a good and occasionally brilliantly orginal songwriter and an
indifferent performer.
>
> "the beetles shall inherit the earth"
> ~ Jumpin' Jesus Jehosephat
>
>
GW
were indeed born yesterday.
"ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:as6c65$n6p$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
GW
What's that got to do with anything? C'mon dipshit, pony up your real idea.
"ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:as6brb$jv3$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Bob
and 5 half steps. The Beatles et al where just part of the sixties and all
that "stuff" that happened, (mainly in the western world). They didn't
invent any of it. They were just a tiny part of it.
--
Peace,
Bob
"ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:as6eei$svd$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
David P Chabot
60's movements and the people who didn't is that we were DOING something...
whereas most today are merely WHINING about how everything that is bad is
the 60's generation's fault... but I am not buying it... get off your asses
and DO SOMETHING about it... change it! I learned that from John Lennon and
the BEATLES.
Peace...Dave www.Shemakhan.com
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast."
Lewis Carroll
Jason Paris
> And whilst I fully acknowledge that I am in no way at a stage of loss of my
> ego, I do believe that it is right to occasionally question given
> assumptions about the world we are confronted with. If that is being
> critical, then so be it. But even Jesus criticised the Pharisees... <
Questioning is a perfectly fine thing to do. To do it while
maintaining respect for your subject is not only a key to mastering
your ego, but it also effects positive change in the world (as opposed
to 'disapproval' and 'disgust', which only add to the negativity
already in existence).
As mastering the ego and effecting positive global change seem to be
your two main objectives (if I've interpreted your original post
correctly), I hope these comments have value to you.
Do you recall the effect of Albert Goldman's book 'The Lives Of John
Lennon'? The author was also questioning, but framed his questioning
(and the answers) in such negativity that, when the book was issued to
the world, it only *added* to the negativity already out there.
The point being that we can *always* choose to exude negativity or
positivity in our actions, thoughts and comments. As small as our
actions, thoughts & comments may seem, they are *definitely* adding to
the balance of positivity and negativity on this planet. (Especially
when multiplied by the several billion Humans here!)
The world will rarely change for the better just because we disapprove
of its current state. But positivising oneself first will *always*
help. ;-)
> You are right that a lot of the things I mention are the responsibilities of
> individuals. But my point is that these things are not the fault of the
> Beatles but of a set of attitudes which grew out of the Beatles and their
> time. That is all.
Well, it's not that I'm "right" - that's contrary what I was saying
yesterday about "rightness" being a subjective opinion. We're in
agreement, that's all.
I have to agree with you that The Beatles are not to blame for the
present state of the world. Because those of us who changed in
response to the Beatles' existence did so because *we chose to*.
Perhaps I can better explain it this way: when you're driving and you
stop at a Stop sign, you do so because you choose to. You could, of
course, choose not to stop.
It's easy to think the sign is doing "something". But of course it's
*you* who responds to the existence of the sign, and your
interpretation of the sign's meaning. The sign itself just *is*; it
doesn't *do* anything to you, nor does it have any intrinsic meaning,
other than the meaning you've internally assigned to it.
And so it was/is with The Beatles.
All the best James,
Jason
robertandrews
>One's own internal criterion is the only definitive measure of what's
"good", "significant" or "important".
Let's say your own internal criterion tells you that it's a good & important
idea to rid the world of people with red hair. So you buy a rifle & kill 10
people with red hair.
I would say that a reasonably sane society would try to remove you from the
population.
Man is a social animal, & music is one of the things we share. What you
consider "good" about a certain piece of music may have absolutely no value
to anyone, & absolutely no relation to the music itself. My neighbor told
me that she's a "good" piano player, who can play "good" Beethoven & Chopin.
When she sat down at the piano, I realized she couldn't play anything by
these composers. She couldn't even find middle C.
She's a little out of touch, but no more so than you.
Jason Paris
> You stupid fucking hippy....
What's a hippy, and why do you assume I am one?
All the best,
Jason
Mister Charlie
"ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:as6abu$v20$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
world than an obvious canker sore like you ever will.
Mister Charlie
"ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:as6an6$vre$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
You a nazi? Sure sound like one.
>
>
>
Mister Charlie
"ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:as6brb$jv3$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
must be the ones ruling the world, eh?? Jesus.
Mister Charlie
"ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:as6d67$s4o$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Conceptual Art Impasse means shit like Joseph Bueays and so on- penny
plain
> ideas delivered in obtuse ways. Hirst, Emin, Lucas- all shit and in
Tate
> Modern.
>
So what have you created that would be worth a plug nickel?
Mister Charlie
"David P Chabot" <shem...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:J%zF9.169362$nB.13799@sccrnsc03...
> I think one of the differences between the people who participated in
the
> 60's movements and the people who didn't is that we were DOING
something...
> whereas most today are merely WHINING about how everything that is bad
is
> the 60's generation's fault... but I am not buying it... get off your
asses
> and DO SOMETHING about it... change it! I learned that from John
Lennon and
> the BEATLES.
While somewhat of an overstatement, yes, I agree.
Mister Charlie
"ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:as6c65$n6p$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
what they think will make money. There are far more worthy unsigned
artists than signed. Lennon was the real thing. So were the other
three. Today's stars won't be around ten years from now, let alone 30.
Mister Charlie
"ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:as6eei$svd$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Standards exist for most things of worth, whether music or art or
hanging gutters. Yes, art is not exempt from showing some sort of
facility at being created. However, art too is far more of a 'feeling'
situation than hanging gutters.
The 'Lennon Bequest' is a pathetic joke.
Mister Charlie
>
> Well, it's not that I'm "right" - that's contrary what I was saying
> yesterday about "rightness" being a subjective opinion. We're in
> agreement, that's all.
>
> I have to agree with you that The Beatles are not to blame for the
> present state of the world. Because those of us who changed in
> response to the Beatles' existence did so because *we chose to*.
>
> Perhaps I can better explain it this way: when you're driving and you
> stop at a Stop sign, you do so because you choose to. You could, of
> course, choose not to stop.
>
> It's easy to think the sign is doing "something". But of course it's
> *you* who responds to the existence of the sign, and your
> interpretation of the sign's meaning. The sign itself just *is*; it
> doesn't *do* anything to you, nor does it have any intrinsic meaning,
> other than the meaning you've internally assigned to it.
>
The meaning the LAW and the world have assigned to it. No one ever
individually did so.
paramucho
<famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A more truthful view may be: He was an average guitarist, a plodding
>pianist, a good and occasionally brilliantly orginal songwriter and an
>indifferent performer.
And the best fuckin' rock singer that ever lived.
Ian
Jason Paris
>> Music simply *is*. <<
> Is *not.* The music we're discussing is created by people -- it doesn't
> come out of thin air. <
I don't remember suggesting otherwise.
Irrespective of where it comes from, what is music once it's been
created? Would you agree that it's *just music*?
And would you agree that if music is perceived to be anything more,
that that perception exists solely within the listener, not the music
itself?
> Some opinions about music are more informed than
> others. For example, John Lennon sings according to Western standards. If
> he tried to sing in tune & failed, most of us would find his missed notes
> grating on the ear. That broadly agreed upon intonation -- an "accord" in
> both a musical & philosophical sense -- forms a basis of communication
> between the artist & the audience, & one aspect of music criticism.
Being a professional musician, my "informed" opinion is to agree with
you. Only because my *personal taste* is also oriented towards tonal
music being performed in tune.
But just because I prefer to hear/perform music in tune doesn't
invalidate the value of "out of tune" music. The challenge is to
delve into that which we don't like, and find a comparable level of
enjoyment from it.
Anyroad, I don't recall actual *musicianship* being discussed between
myself & James.
The point was that Mozart is more "significant" than The Beatles in
the mind of the beholder only.
Which is not to undermine the beauty, complexity or profundity of
either Mozart or The Beatles (as I perceive them from my subjective
perspective). I suggested that *objectively*, Classical is no more
significant than Pop, and vice versa.
>> It's generally an intuitive, non-rational affection. <<
> If there's nothing to discuss about one's affection for music, then why
> visit a music newsgroup? Intuition plays a big role in music, but by itself
> it's nada mucho. <
I was *advocating* the importance of using one's intuitive faculty to
appreciate music.
> Babies can be born with AIDS or addicted to drugs, anyone can contract AIDS
> from an infected blood transfusion. Few children choose to be neglected,
> abused or dangled over a balcony. Neither is "loveless sex" always a matter
> of choice. People rarely choose to be poorly educated, & many of our social
> problems are the result of bad education & the deliberate preaching of
> ignorance. <
From a temporal perspective, all this would seem to be the case. It
is but one perspective.
> You sound like someone who (allegedly) loves all humanity, but nobody in
> particular. Jesus hated a whole bunch of stuff. I heard Buddha hated liver
> & onions.
I don't recall discussing myself in the previous post.
However, you are - of course - welcome to any opinion of me that you
form. Like the music, I simply *am*; however you perceive me is
entirely your choice.
And if I was as you described, what is your point?
> You've just been very critical of jmc's post - was that a result of ego or
> the divine spark inside your soul? <
Ego, purely. I didn't claim to have my own in balance.
Which is why the question was put to someone who advocates the
benefits of Ego-balance, presumably because they have personally
experienced it.
> Pure subjectivity is just as ridiculous as pure objectivity.
From a subjective perspective, yes. ;-)
All the best,
Jason
CYBERFLOYD
<< Art is a specialist field. The Lennon Bequest however, says that any cunt
can offer up an opinion. Just like you've done in this mail. When people who
start to reject a Canon of work that they only know an infinestimal amount
about ie music, art, literature begin to offer their own half-baked opinions
up, one instantly knows what they are worth: diddley squat. You a Pink Floyd
fan? If you aren't you fucking sound like one.<<
I don't usually get into personal specifics in these NG's but since you
asked...
Not a big Pink Floyd fan, but I like them. The email addy refers to a cat. I'm
a professional artist (meaning I have a couple of degrees, fame and acclaim,
fistfulls of cash..brag..brag..) and I've probably forgotten more about this
art thing than you know exists. Like you, I believed in a 'Canon' but have
pretty much gotten over it. I think that's an idea better suited for religion
than art. One man's Canon is another man's Diddly Squat. The history of art
criticism is one of agendas. Good critical thinking is comprised of theories at
best and hopefully some informed and non-biased (but still subjective)
observations.
>>
jmc
> than The Beatles, that's perfectly OK.
I am sorry Jason, I hear all your arguments, I know where you're coming from
and I am not unsympathetic - but it is NOT OK to like shit over quality.
There is also an argument, with which I actually concur, that some music is
more "God inspired" than others. Therefore, to like Britney over Beatles or
Bealtes over Mozart is, in effect, SIN.
jmc
> Whiteread (not as good as some of her previous work, but still beautiful,
> contemplative and meaningful), Douglas Gordon, Graham Day, Steven
Campbell,
> Julian Opie, Anthony Gormley (the Field of little figures, and drawings) -
> these are just a few artists, exhibited now,
Darren, these people are rubbish, and the very definition of the Emperor's
New Clothes. Get thee to a Raphael, and see how far we've fallen!
Firstly, the collections go back to the start
> of the century - long before the supposedly disastrous 1960s or
> conceptualism.
True - and the good things that are in there (F Bacon, Dali & surrealists)
are so badly hung that it staggers belief. Putting Beuys next to something
of worth degrades that something of worth - it is an insult, frankly.
The majority of the stuff in there is trash, and insulting to the human
spirit. There's a case to be made that millionaires like Saachi are
deliberately degrading public taste, for their own ends.
I lay this at the feet of Lennon and Ono not because she was the first or
even particularly influential but because the amount of publicity she got
through her involvement with John paved the way for the current foisting of
empty-headed drivel on the public as art.
"Dig a hole in the clouds and piss on talent and vision".
robertandrews
>Therefore, to like Britney over Beatles or Bealtes over Mozart is, in
effect, SIN.
Say what? Britney is a Christian virgin (trust me, I can smell a virgin)
who plays danceable pop music. The Beatles are all about acid & doing it in
the road.
James martin charlton said that God would consider me less of a person on
Judgment Day, if I ever made the sinful mistake of writing "Matthew, Mark,
Luke & Thomas" (Thomas in lieu of John, that is). SIN SIN SIN!!! (but don't
play games with my affection).
By the way, what's your beef with the gospel of Thomas? Was his a sinful
gospel? You're the SIN expert around here, I'll defer to your greater
judgment.
robertandrews
>She's a little out of touch, but no more so than you.
And that was an unnecessary touch at the end. My apologies. You might be a
little crazy, but not as crazy as some of the other lunatics on this thread.
Eric Von Trapp
take a bow, robert...:)
D East
> Darren, these people are rubbish, and the very definition of the Emperor's
> New Clothes. Get thee to a Raphael, and see how far we've fallen!
With all due respect, I disagree. Yes, Raphael is wonderful. But he was
radical in his day - he changed the way paintings work. Artists are still
doing that and still need to. It would be terrible if they kept trying to
paint like Raphael. I may be wrong but I'm beginning to think you've simply
decided that the world is going to hell in a handcart and you're letting
that colour all your interpretations. Why not try to find things you might
like? Or people who are resisting such trends? The good stuff is out there.
There's always been more rubbish than great art, even in Raphael's time.
> True - and the good things that are in there (F Bacon, Dali & surrealists)
> are so badly hung that it staggers belief. Putting Beuys next to something
> of worth degrades that something of worth - it is an insult, frankly.
I take your point about the hanging. However, I think Dali is possibly the
most tedious and over-rated artist of the twentieth century - his "visions"
are mostly witless and his painting technique chewy and uninteresting. We're
obviously not going to agree.
> The majority of the stuff in there is trash, and insulting to the human
> spirit. There's a case to be made that millionaires like Saachi are
> deliberately degrading public taste, for their own ends.
Saachi has arguably had a malign influence. He helped to give a certain
public prominence to art that seemed to be aspiring to the condition of
advertising. But that "YBA" thing is over. And there were always other
artists working, anyway.
> I lay this at the feet of Lennon and Ono not because she was the first or
> even particularly influential but because the amount of publicity she got
> through her involvement with John paved the way for the current foisting
of
> empty-headed drivel on the public as art.
I can see absolutely no evidence for this being the case.
In addition, I think you will find that most of the publicity Yoko OR
contemporary "empty-headed" art gets is negative. Look at the art-bashing
circus that surrounds the Turner Prize every year.
And the Raphaels, thankfully, are still there for us to go and look at.
Probably more accessible, in fact, than ever before. Just as it's now easier
to hear good Mozart and Beethoven than it's ever been.
Darren
David P Chabot
--
Mister Charlie
>
> However, you are - of course - welcome to any opinion of me that you
> form. Like the music, I simply *am*; however you perceive me is
> entirely your choice.
I am going to hate myself for doing this, BUT....
Doesn't what you say right here echo Bob's earlier contention about
people interpreting their own feelings (which, as you may recall I
disagreed with).
So people are all blank slates with no overwhelming identifiable engine
to drive them and it is only how others perceive us that defines us???
Mister Charlie
>
> "Jason Paris" <jamb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:253370b9.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > If one confers greater significance on the music of Britney Spears
> > than The Beatles, that's perfectly OK.
>
> I am sorry Jason, I hear all your arguments, I know where you're
coming from
> and I am not unsympathetic - but it is NOT OK to like shit over
quality.
> There is also an argument, with which I actually concur, that some
music is
> more "God inspired" than others. Therefore, to like Britney over
Beatles or
> Bealtes over Mozart is, in effect, SIN.
>
>
Mister Charlie
You fuckwits will be judged mighty harshly.
Mister Charlie
just you wanking.
Bob
news:as8dus$ou2qh$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
Whew! I hope so. How can one become so twisted? BTW, what does the H. stand
for? ;)
--
Peace,
Bob
Mister Charlie
"Bob" <bob1...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:DZPF9.35388$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
jmc
"D East" <darre...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:as7l8...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> > It would be terrible if they kept trying to
> paint like Raphael.
Not if "Paint like Raphael" meant people getting their inspiration from
spiritual Inspiration and not mere intellect, as these conceptual charlies
do.
I may be wrong but I'm beginning to think you've simply
> decided that the world is going to hell in a handcart and you're letting
> that colour all your interpretations.
I do not think that "the world is going to hell in a handcart" but Western
society certainly will unless we wake up & get in touch with something
beyond mere sensation, intellect & materialism. That's all the Damien Hursts
of this world are about, and you're a fool (or a knave) if you think
otherwise.
"Call that the Public Voice which is their Error,
Like as a Monkey peeping in a Mirror
Admires all his colours brown & warm
And never once perceives his ugly form"
William Blake, c1810.
Read his Public Address on Art and know what he'd think & feel re Tate
Modern / Ono not another bunch of wank bollocks.
jmc
"robertandrews" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gxHF9.1287$ic6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >Therefore, to like Britney over Beatles or Bealtes over Mozart is, in
> effect, SIN.
>
> Say what? Britney is a Christian virgin (trust me, I can smell a virgin)
> who plays danceable pop music. The Beatles are all about acid & doing it
in
> the road.
>
> James martin charlton
Ho ho ho fullnames is it now, robert andrews - gloves coming off (but I am
glad you've been paying such close attention...
said that God would consider me less of a person on
> Judgment Day, if I ever made the sinful mistake of writing "Matthew, Mark,
> Luke & Thomas" (Thomas in lieu of John, that is). SIN SIN SIN!!! (but
don't
> play games with my affection).
I'm actually having a laugh with yez, 'cos I know old time Bible talk does
wind the liberals & let-it-all-hang-out hippies up (thus the big hoo-hah
when Bob turned Christian)
> By the way, what's your beef with the gospel of Thomas?
Take my hat off to you, I didn't tune in to this reference.
Was his a sinful
> gospel? You're the SIN expert around here, I'll defer to your greater
> judgment.
>
(Humbly) I am an expert on sin, 'cos I'm such a poor sinner (like us all).
But then again, y'know it's an ARCHERY term, and means "missing the mark" -
or maybe missing the point, which puts a whole new complextion on Harry
Nillson's Me and My Arrow...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by Expert Anti-Virus.
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 14/11/02
jmc
> You fuckwits will be judged mighty harshly.
Mister Charlie, why have you got such a filthy mouth? Can't you make any
points without cussing? If my mother were to hear you, she'd threaten to
wash your mouth out with soap.
Soap - a concept not a lot of hippies are familiar with. Part of the Lennon
Bequest...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by Expert Anti-Virus.
Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 14/11/02
Eric Von Trapp
Homer.
D East
If so, I might as well give up now.
It seems to me that the Public Voice is very divided, and lots of it is
still quite fond of realist painting and extremely critical of "the Damien
Hirsts of this world" (as if one wasn't enough. Or as if all contemporary
artists are the same).
I truly believe that among the music (both popular and otherwise: Elliott
Carter? Gyorgy Kurtag? & many others), the art, the theatre (etc) of today
there is good work, spiritually inspired and otherwise, worthy of respect,
interest and discussion. But if you don't agree, and you won't look at the
world around you in an optimistic or receptive way, well, we don't have
anything else to say to each other really.
Darren
PS Blake's Public Address is a brilliant, entertaining, fragmented and
contradictory rant, according to which about half the collection of the
National Gallery is fraudulent rubbish, never mind Tate Modern.
David P Chabot
>Like as a Monkey peeping in a Mirror
>Admires all his colours brown & warm
>And never once perceives his ugly form"
>William Blake, c1810.
This only works if one considers the monkey ugly... (self hatred?)
ROBBIE
>
> "ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:as6an6$vre$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > fan? If you aren't you fucking sound like one.
>
> You a nazi? Sure sound like one.
Could you explain further why you responded like this?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
ROBBIE
"CYBERFLOYD" <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021129045018...@mb-fa.aol.com...
> "ROBBIE" famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> << Art is a specialist field. The Lennon Bequest however, says that any
cunt
> can offer up an opinion. Just like you've done in this mail. When people
who
> start to reject a Canon of work that they only know an infinestimal amount
> about ie music, art, literature begin to offer their own half-baked
opinions
> up, one instantly knows what they are worth: diddley squat. You a Pink
Floyd
> fan? If you aren't you fucking sound like one.<<
>
> I don't usually get into personal specifics in these NG's but since you
> asked...
>
> Not a big Pink Floyd fan, but I like them. The email addy refers to a cat.
I'm
> a professional artist (meaning I have a couple of degrees, fame and
acclaim,
> fistfulls of cash..brag..brag..) and I've probably forgotten
'probably' is the operative word here. 'Fistfull's of cash' is interesting
too. I think you're a bullshitter.
ROBBIE
"GW" <gwal...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:SkzF9.27236$pa7.2...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> Oasis? What do they have to do with anything? How many chords you want?
> What's that got to do with anything? C'mon dipshit, pony up your real
idea.
answer not a fool....
>
> "ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:as6brb$jv3$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "GW" <gwal...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:8QgF9.24855$pa7.2...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> > > Why'd you single out John Lennon? You're getting an inaccurate
account
> > from
> > > the media and maybe the education system. The Beatles had a big
> > influence,
> > > although their rebellion was indirect. Lennon was a latecomer to
> > politics,
> > > and was considered a seeker at the time of his peak popularity. I
don't
> > > know of anyone, including his most dedicated fans, who thought of him
as
> > > having all the answers (least of all Lennon, who never pretended to
have
> > all
> > > the answers).
> > >
> > > So blaming AIDS on Lennon is silly. As for me-first, that has far
more
> to
> > > do with affluence and a relatively peaceful time than it does with
> > anything
> > > else. The pressure is off, so people aren't forced together.
> > >
> > > You seem to yearn for some authoritarian setup but I'd like to know
> which
> > > one. What should people not be allowed to do? As for rock'n'roll as
> > > salvation or rock'n'roll as world-changing, that's stuff out of bad
> > > textbooks. Rock'n'roll could change minds and probably changed some
> > > behavior. In the 60's at least it made people think sometimes. Did
it
> > > change everybody? Not a chance. For one thing, the majority never
> > > listened.
> >
> > Jmc's argument can only be effectivley elucidated at book-length and I
> think
> > he has the basis of the book! As Beatles fans are so fond of knowing,
the
> > Beatles *did* change the world- unfortunately they didn't change the
music
> > business and pop music, once a pleasant opiate is now a remorseless
> torture
> > inflicted by Corporations.
> >
> > Lennon licensed infantile loser-ism whilst being a howling success,
sound
> > familiar? Its yer Rock and Roll Archetype to which many have aspired:
from
> > boozy violence and wife beating to pot dabbling to acid meltdown and the
> > foetal cop out of smack; the trick of having nothing but a savvy gob and
a
> > few chords and ending up King of the World worked well for him but the
> plan
> > is subject to that old diminishing return law. Oasis are in a 'History
is
> > first time tragedy, Second time Farce' dialectic with the Beatles.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "jmc" <jamesmart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:as35ms$89a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > > The following is the first flowering of some thoughts and ideas
which
> > > myself
> > > > and some friends have been formulating as we wake from the sixties
> dream
> > > and
> > > > are released from the illusion that rock'n'roll is some sacred and
> > > wonderful
> > > > thing which has enriched people's lives and led us into a better
> world.
> > > >
> > > > The basis of our case is that the permissive revolution of the
sixties
> > > was,
> > > > like all revolutions, a failure which has returned us to the
starting
> > > place,
> > > > where we "hate the new boss the same as the old boss" and have, in
the
> > > > meantime, shed oceans of tears and blood in making a failed point.
We
> > > focus
> > > > of the figure of John Lennon as he is the figurehead of the whole
> > > movement,
> > > > his death made him its patron saint and, most of all, his attitude
as
> an
> > > > individual is as good a place as any to begin looking at what the
> > attitude
> > > > of the movement was, and where it has led us. This we call The
Lennon
> > > > Bequest, as his was the guiding spirit of his age.
> > > >
> > > > I am not wholly concerned with the quality (or otherwise) of the
> music.
> > > That
> > > > Lennon/McCartney as a team produced some of the greatest, most
> enduring
> > > and
> > > > most innovative pop songs there is no doubt. I would, however,
> question
> > > the
> > > > extent of such an achievement in the context of the world's cultural
> > > history
> > > > and the Beatles' popularly supposed place in it: it was merely pop
> > music,
> > > > and lacks the complexity, depth of spiritual content and achievement
> in
> > > > composition of music further up the hierarchic scale. Simply put,
> beside
> > > > Mozart and Beethoven, for example, the Beatles are "very small" (to
> > quote
> > > > their own Within You Without You). And whilst it will be argued that
> > such
> > > > comparisons are odious, I would say that the very post-modern (and
> > > > post-sixties) refusal to see that some things are intrinsically on a
> > > higher
> > > > level of achievement than others is itself part of the Lennon
bequest.
> > As
> > > is
> > > > the rock music industry itself.
> > > >
> > > > The rock music industry, far from being a means of liberation, is
> become
> > a
> > > > form of control used by the Corporations to limit our intellect,
> > encroach
> > > > upon our sense of individuality & national identity and dull our
> > > > sensibilities - which might otherwise find pleasure in finer musical
> > > > expressions. This the Corporations learned from the unprecedented
> global
> > > > success of the Beatles (with Elvis as their precursor). The sixties
> > showed
> > > > them the benefits of selling sex, violence and rebellion as a
> commodity
> > > and
> > > > that commodity now feeds the decadence of a society which uses fear
to
> > > > control its law-abiding citizens and deliberately stokes the
violence
> of
> > > the
> > > > law-breaker (liberal attitudes muddying everyone's waters in the
> > process).
> > > > Few people of discernment would deny that we are now at the fag end
of
> > > > rock's ability to achieve - one can trace a line of degradation from
> > John
> > > > Lennon to those thugs the Gallagher brothers from Oasis, whose
> > > > button-pushing, derivative and banal drivel is where we have ended.
> How
> > > > unlike the dreamed-for developing art-form which the Beatles
promised
> > but
> > > > failed to deliver.
> > > >
> > > > I cannot leave Lennon's personality out of the mix, purely because
it
> > has
> > > > had such a cultural effect. A recent BBC panegyric described him as
> > > "Ghandi
> > > > with a sense of humour". We would be better off thinking of him as a
> > > > football hooligan with a talent for playing guitar, a restless sense
> of
> > > > curiosity and a very hungry ego (to mention nothing of his
> infantilism).
> > > The
> > > > whole idea (which Lennon got from Jimmy Porter in Look Back in
Anger)
> > that
> > > > ranting against the world and being anti-authoritarian without being
> > > > constructive was popularised by Lennon and taken as a stance by
> millions
> > > of
> > > > heavily ego-ed persons who, instead of developing themselves
> > spiritually,
> > > > contented themselves with making a mock of others. Part of the
Lennon
> > > > Bequest is the moral quagmire of gangster rap and satanic rock,
> surely.
> > > >
> > > > Nowadays in the West, there is an all-prevalent idea that art can be
> > made
> > > > not from a combination of talent (genius), study and labour but from
> > > smoking
> > > > a joint (or whatever) and letting the mind wander. But one does not
> > > develop
> > > > as an artist in such a way - on the contrary, one stalls like
Lennon,
> a
> > > man
> > > > who offered nothing in the way of a decent achievement after 1971.
He
> > > > couldn't be bothered, and the world at large has taken such scally
> > > shirking
> > > > as a cri de coeur, to its eternal detriment. What is more, Lennon's
> > > totally
> > > > mistaken conviction that Yoko Ono has any real artistic talent or
> > anything
> > > > valid to say has led us into the current conceptual art impasse
which
> > sees
> > > > nobodies such as Tracy Emin as worthwhile and people with real
> abilities
> > > in
> > > > painting, composition and vision derided and ignored. One can almost
> see
> > > the
> > > > Tate Modern as a vast mausoleum of the sixties dream, wherein the
> State
> > > > instead of Apple is giving any gabby chancer the funded opportunity
to
> > > > purvey their charlatan wares.
> > > >
> > > > The Beatles encouraged drug use, no question. Anyone who has ever
> taken
> > > > drugs for an extended period of their life will tell you that they
> > "don't
> > > > work" in a big way. Same with sex without love - I Wanna Hold Your
> Hand
> > > led
> > > > directly to the plague of unmarried mother, neglected children and
> AIDS
> > > > casualties we see in Western societies now. The line from the
Beatles
> to
> > > the
> > > > most squalid of crack dens is a direct one and our signpost was
> Lennon;
> > > the
> > > > misery of wasted generation after wasted generation is part of his
> > > bequest.
> > > >
> > > > The world appears to be fast sputtering towards extinction, polluted
> not
> > > > only by industrial emissions but by the darkness of the angry
energies
> > > many
> > > > of us manifest daily. The ego is running rampant, an ego which was
the
> > > only
> > > > thing John Lennon believed in (one can trace a direct line from his
> > > couplet
> > > > "I just believe in me / Yoko and Me" to Thatcher's aphorism "there
is
> no
> > > > such thing as society, just individual men and women and families).
> Even
> > > his
> > > > best songs - Strawberry Fields Forever and Imagine - are mere
dreams,
> > > > fantasies and not visions (it would be interesting to see a
> concordance
> > of
> > > > Beatles lyrics and note how many times the word "dream" appears - I
> > doubt
> > > > if the word vision appears even once). As Bob Dylan says, "You've
got
> > some
> > > > big dreams, baby / but you know, to dream you gotta still be
asleep".
> > > >
> > > > The Lennon Bequest is generations of lost souls, only sleeping,
> drifting
> > > > downstream into nightmares which we all better wake up from pretty
> soon.
> > > Or
> > > > else.
> > > >
> > > > (By the way, I acknowledge that Harrison, alone of the Beatles, at
> least
> > > saw
> > > > that what the Beatles had created was mere illusion, dreams and
> > fantasies
> > > in
> > > > clouds - surely the title Cloud 9 is a dig at the Lennon Bequest, 9
> > being
> > > > Lennon's fateful number and the cloud surely being the cloud of
> > unkowing -
> > > > and pointed towards loss of ego as a way of getting us out of this
> mess.
> > > > Good on him!)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by Expert Anti-Virus.
> > > > Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
ROBBIE
>
> > >
> Blah blah. Talk about mindless invective. Corporations...oooh, they
> must be the ones ruling the world, eh?? Jesus.
>
>
You're nine years old aren't you? Or older with a marijauna age of nine?
ROBBIE
>
> "ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:as6c65$n6p$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...> > news:5_oF9.26534$pa7.2...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> > > One more thing: you have no idea how much effort went into Beatle
> > > recordings. Read Lewisohn's Beatle Sessions before you judge anyone
> as
> > > "lazy". You can argue about the profundity of what was produced;
> you can
> > > argue about all the knob-fiddling versus live jazz or great
> composers but
> > > you sure can't accuse the Beatles of laziness.
> > >
> > > Many great composers often composed in fits of inspiration and then
> went
> > > through long dry periods. Not a bad description of Lennon's career.
> > >
> > > Finally, you're either an artist or you're not an artist. You're
> born
> > with
> > > it. That's Woody Allen's take and I believe it. As long as there
> is
> > > equipment to play disks with, Lennon will be counted among the
> artists.
> > > There are a bazillion wannabes who work like crazy and never produce
> a
> > > fraction of the enduring works he left.
> >
> >
> > That has everything to do with how music is marketed and distributed
> and
> > little to do with Lennon's supposed genius.
> >
> >
> Bullshit, Sherlock. The "Corporations" you're so fond of only crank out
> what they think will make money. There are far more worthy unsigned
> artists than signed. Lennon was the real thing. So were the other
> three. Today's stars won't be around ten years from now, let alone 30.
You've missed my point entirely, but you know Charlie, because you're such a
loudmouthed rose-tinted-spectacle-wearing cunt of a Beatles fan, I'm not
going to waste my time re-iterating. Go back to you little glass menagerie
of Pepperland.
>
>
ROBBIE
"David P Chabot" <shem...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:J%zF9.169362$nB.13799@sccrnsc03...
> I think one of the differences between the people who participated in the
> 60's movements and the people who didn't is that we were DOING
something...
> whereas most today are merely WHINING about how everything that is bad is
> the 60's generation's fault... but I am not buying it... get off your
asses
> and DO SOMETHING about it... change it! I learned that from John Lennon
and
> the BEATLES.
>
You stupid fucking self satisfied american cunt.
ROBBIE
>
> "ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:as6d67$s4o$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Conceptual Art Impasse means shit like Joseph Bueays and so on- penny
> plain
> > ideas delivered in obtuse ways. Hirst, Emin, Lucas- all shit and in
> Tate
> > Modern.
> >
>
> So what have you created that would be worth a plug nickel?
Oh Charlie, my adult life has been devoted to making things of aesthetic
importance.
>
>
ROBBIE
"paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
news:3df8fcc7....@news.supernews.com...
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:57:45 -0000, "ROBBIE"
> <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >A more truthful view may be: He was an average guitarist, a plodding
> >pianist, a good and occasionally brilliantly orginal songwriter and an
> >indifferent performer.
>
> And the best fuckin' rock singer that ever lived.
nonsense. That's emotional necrophilia Ian- Lennon himself was only too
aware- when he got away from the coke for five minutes- how poor a performer
he was.
>
>
> Ian
>
ROBBIE
>
> The 'Lennon Bequest' is a pathetic joke.
You mean that the cultural revolution- head boy: J.Lennon- is a pathetic
joke? I agree.
>
>
>
robertandrews
>A more truthful view may be: He was an average guitarist,
I consider Lennon one of the greatest rhythm players in rock, & an
underrated lead player.
>a plodding pianist,
Lennon was weak on piano, but I think he had a nice touch. I'd say the same
for Dylan, though Dylan is probably technically better (on piano) than
Lennon.
>a good and occasionally brilliantly orginal songwriter
Lennon-McCartney are generally considered among the very best songwriters
ever. And Lennon's first two solo albums have many Beatles-quality songs.
Some solo Lennon songs (Imagine, Love, Jealous Guy, Oh My Love, Woman,
Beautiful Boy) have become part of American culture, probably as much as
Beatles songs. I assume that's true in England as well.
>and an indifferent performer.
Lennon was essentially the lead man in the early-mid Beatles -- he sang most
of the important singles, & he's positioned at the front of the stage. You
can't have such a powerful act with an indifferent performer at the helm.
He's one of the great voices in rock history (though I put Elvis as #1).
ROBBIE
> <Sigh>. Is everybody who disagrees with you necessarily a fool or a knave?
> If so, I might as well give up now.
>
> It seems to me that the Public Voice is very divided, and lots of it is
> still quite fond of realist painting
Well you see, when they go in Tate Modern and see all this midget,
stoned-in-the-student-union-bar ideas laid out at enormous cost, they
naturally start thinking how much nicer the Fighting Temeraire is for
example. Knowing at first hand the charlantanry and starfucker psychology of
the art world I cannot be as objective as you.
ROBBIE
> "ROBBIE" <famousfatboydanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >A more truthful view may be: He was an average guitarist,
>
> I consider Lennon one of the greatest rhythm players in rock, & an
> underrated lead player.
the only good solo he ever played was on Get Back- a track, I might add,
that started life a musical exhortation to Pakistanis immigrants to emigrate
the hell back to where they came.
>
> >a plodding pianist,
>
> Lennon was weak on piano, but I think he had a nice touch. I'd say the
same
> for Dylan, though Dylan is probably technically better (on piano) than
> Lennon.
>
> >a good and occasionally brilliantly orginal songwriter
>
> Lennon-McCartney are generally considered among the very best songwriters
> ever. And Lennon's first two solo albums have many Beatles-quality songs.
> Some solo Lennon songs (Imagine, Love, Jealous Guy, Oh My Love, Woman,
> Beautiful Boy) have become part of American culture, probably as much as
> Beatles songs. I assume that's true in England as well.
Did you really need to write the above? Imagine is a nauseating piece of
nonsense by a Very Rich Man.
>
> >and an indifferent performer.
>
> Lennon was essentially the lead man in the early-mid Beatles -- he sang
most
> of the important singles, & he's positioned at the front of the stage.
You
> can't have such a powerful act with an indifferent performer at the helm.
> He's one of the great voices in rock history (though I put Elvis as #1).
I'd put Little Richard and Wilson Pickett above them both- and Lennon owed
every cent he had to Chuck Berry.
>
>