Happy Xmas (War is Over). Lennon Legend version :-(
Martin
is Over) video from when I bought the Best of John Lennon VHS. On that
compilation from what I can remember there was shots of the Harlem Community
Choir and a stills of the recording session, generally a fair job made of a
promo clip considering it must have been compiled 15 to 20 years after the
event.
So what has Yoko done now!!? I put my young kids in front of the TV to watch
what I thought would be a pleasant festive sing a long... but the pictures
were of death! bodies of babies and young children wrapped up after being
killed. I don't want to belittle the grief of the bereaved or forget the
atrocities of the recent war.. but there is a time and a place!!
If you buy a DVD titled 'Lennon Legend' you expect something relevant to
orginal release not a reworked video for political statements on recent
events by his widow.
A big thumbs down Yoko!! Put some sort of warning on the case as this is an
'E' (exempt) certificate in the UK.
Martin
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
Edward S. Chenn
> is Over) video from when I bought the Best of John Lennon VHS. On that
> compilation from what I can remember there was shots of the Harlem Community
> Choir and a stills of the recording session
It has been reported (including in my own review on rmbm) that
"Lennon Legend" is not "The John Lennon Video Collection." NONE
of the clips are exactly the same, and only a couple remain
minimally changed.
> So what has Yoko done now!!? I put my young kids in front of the TV to watch
> what I thought would be a pleasant festive sing a long...
You really should have previewed the disc first.
Yoko did what she felt was correct in the context of presenting John and
*all* of his philosophy. The song is not just that festive sing-along
of "Happy Xmas," but also the slightly uncomfortable message (to some)
that "War is Over...If You Want It."
> If you buy a DVD titled 'Lennon Legend' you expect something relevant to
> orginal release not a reworked video for political statements on recent
> events by his widow.
Recent Events? Look at the song. The clip is more about Vietnam than
Iraq. The alteration to the "Power to the People" promo was more about
what is going on in 2003 than "Happy Xmas (WIO)."
I happen to agree with you that the JLVC version is "better," but understand
and defend the artistic vision behind the revision. The Simon and Garfunkel
version of "Silent Night" is a comparable period piece.
> A big thumbs down Yoko!! Put some sort of warning on the case as this is an
> 'E' (exempt) certificate in the UK.
There isn't anything overly graphic. Everything in the clip
could be shown on the nightly news. Yoko had nothing to do with
the rating. You should complain to the British Board of Film
Classification (BBFC) if you feel the "E" is inappropriate.
<ESC>
Johnny Dupe
"Martin" <NOSPAM.mar...@excite.com.REMOVE> wrote
> So what has Yoko done now!!? I put my young kids in front of the TV to
watch
> what I thought would be a pleasant festive sing a long... but the pictures
> were of death! bodies of babies and young children wrapped up after being
> killed. I don't want to belittle the grief of the bereaved or forget the
> atrocities of the recent war.. but there is a time and a place!!
of course, there are some that would say that yoko's choice of irony is
brilliant, thought provoking stuff. certainly not me, and i agree with you.
there should have at least been a warning as to the graphic content. freedom
of expression is fine, but why ruin already-completed music videos with
horrid, horrible scenes of death?
i haven't even purchased the lennon dvd, and after reading some comments
here about it, i think i'll seek out the good stuff- like bootlegs of
original videos. it is a disgrace to tarnish lennon's memory with such vivid
and horrible images, regardless if the song concerned war to begin with. if
john wanted dead bodies in his video, he would have put it in his video the
first time.
it's rather a "clockwork orange" effect that i find disturbing. a good
example would be "stuck in the middle with you" by a band called stealer's
wheel. the song was played in quentin tarantino's movie "reservior dogs" to
humorous/disgusting/ironic/violent effect. it was brilliant in my opinion,
but i will never listen to that song the same way again. the imagery of a
man being tortured and killed while the song is played made me take the song
off of my oldies playlist.
yoko's reworking of the videos of classic lennon songs is in the same vein
as what tarantino did, but it gets to the point that enough is enough. the
album cover photo of lennon's blood-smudged glasses after he was murdered
was powerful stuff, and unsettling. she should have stopped there.
"war is over" was about an entirely different war, and each war has
different perspectives and repercussions. it's unneccessary to mess with the
video when it's point had already been made three decades earlier.
-Lux Interior
xex6...@monoman.com
wrote:
>i haven't even purchased the lennon dvd, and after reading some comments
>here about it, i think i'll seek out the good stuff- like bootlegs of
>original videos.
there are some good videos on the dvd, the alternate version of
instant karma from lennon's other appearance on top of the pops is
brilliant to have.
and the 5.1 mixes are awesome throughout.
it's just a pity that yoko decided to mess with alot of the finished
ones that were fine.
> it is a disgrace to tarnish lennon's memory with such vivid
>and horrible images, regardless if the song concerned war to begin with. if
>john wanted dead bodies in his video, he would have put it in his video the
>first time.
the other tragedy is that he never did a promo clip of it in the
first place....still even on the ones he did do, it didn't stop yoko
from messing with them most of the time.
xex6...@monoman.com
wrote:
>It has been reported (including in my own review on rmbm) that
>"Lennon Legend" is not "The John Lennon Video Collection." NONE
>of the clips are exactly the same, and only a couple remain
>minimally changed.
not everybody reads reviews in rmbm.
not everybody reads rmbm.
>You really should have previewed the disc first.
thats a really ignorant statement.
since when (until the release of this disc) have John lennon video
clips been unsuitable for young children?
>Yoko did what she felt was correct in the context of presenting John and
>*all* of his philosophy. The song is not just that festive sing-along
>of "Happy Xmas," but also the slightly uncomfortable message (to some)
>that "War is Over...If You Want It."
The video is not a festive happy christmas at all.
it is all uncomfortable footage
>> If you buy a DVD titled 'Lennon Legend' you expect something relevant to
>> orginal release not a reworked video for political statements on recent
>> events by his widow.
>
>Recent Events? Look at the song. The clip is more about Vietnam than
>Iraq. The alteration to the "Power to the People" promo was more about
>what is going on in 2003 than "Happy Xmas (WIO)."
there's lots of dead bodies from the 1990's, 1980's, 2000's and
vietnam.there's dead bodies from everywhere.
only a ghoul would bother to do a tally on which period has more dead
bodies.
>I happen to agree with you that the JLVC version is "better," but understand
>and defend the artistic vision behind the revision. The Simon and Garfunkel
>version of "Silent Night" is a comparable period piece.
there's nothing comparable with that video.
visuals of dead and rotting corpses are far more frightening than a
radio newsbroadcast that includes news of people being murdered,
especially when it is half drowned out by simon and garfunkel singing
silent night over the top of it.
plus there's a minor's reference on the lp of the news with silent
night, whereas on happy christmas there is no reference..you think you
are getting a video clip to a christmas song..the war is over part is
a minor part of the song...the references have now been reversed
completely.and visuals are far more impacting on young children than
words.
>
>There isn't anything overly graphic.
you are joking aren't you?
close ups of dead bodies from torture and bombings is not graphic?
people are complaining of visuals of john's dead body, on this clip we
get dozens of them.
> Everything in the clip
>could be shown on the nightly news.
shown on the news with an anouncers warning.
"some of the following scenes may disturb viewers"
> Yoko had nothing to do with
>the rating.
No but she had everything to do with the content.
> You should complain to the British Board of Film
>Classification (BBFC) if you feel the "E" is inappropriate.
we all should complain to our local censors.
Johnny Dupe
"Edward S. Chenn" <e...@dna.bchs.uh.edu> wrote
> > So what has Yoko done now!!? I put my young kids in front of the TV to
watch
> > what I thought would be a pleasant festive sing a long...
>You really should have previewed the disc first.
with all due respect, Ed, people shouldn't have to do that. That's why they
should have had a warning message of some sort on the DVD box. *Then* that
would warrant previewing it before letting the kids watch it. we're talking
john lennon here, not black sabbath or slayer.
while he always had strong political views, it never made his videos or
interviews unwatchable. there was no need to be so brutally graphic on a
popular song that had a children's choir, no less.
freedom of speech is great. lenny bruce finally got some respect recently
that his rights of free speech were violated. practice all the freedom of
speech you want, but if you're going to get real nasty, let people know in
advance whether the presentation might be offensive. that way everyone has
their freedoms exercised- the freedom to watch in horror and the freedom of
hitting the eject button.
shock for the sheer sake of shock is rather dumb. yoko's behavior is almost
saying, "well, innocent people died horrible deaths in vietnam, but let's
update the video and feature some new dead bodies".
what next, "woman is the nigger of the world" updated with videos of blacks
being tortured?
Johnny Dupe
"here is nowhere" <flu...@foodbowl.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945F1F6...@140.99.99.130...
> Johnny wrote:
>
> > there was no need to be so brutally graphic on a
> > popular song that had a children's choir, no less.
>
>
>
> It has never been about children singing in Sunday school.
Well, I always knew that, but it was an ironic statement about the Vietnam
war, and we all know what happened there. Having a video made to show more
innocent lives killed in an entirely different war may be rather "artsy" and
clever pointing out how things haven't changed much, but i'd rather not see
the stock news footage of more human suffering yet again.
We got the message the first time.
Chocolate Jesus !!
"Johnny Dupe" <du...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:JkrHb.14700$fq1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "Edward S. Chenn" <e...@dna.bchs.uh.edu> wrote
>
> > > So what has Yoko done now!!? I put my young kids in front of the TV to
> watch
> > > what I thought would be a pleasant festive sing a long...
>
> >You really should have previewed the disc first.
>
>
> with all due respect, Ed, people shouldn't have to do that. That's why
they
> should have had a warning message of some sort on the DVD box. *Then* that
> would warrant previewing it before letting the kids watch it. we're
talking
> john lennon here, not black sabbath or slayer.
>
> while he always had strong political views, it never made his videos or
> interviews unwatchable. there was no need to be so brutally graphic on a
> popular song that had a children's choir, no less.
>
> freedom of speech is great.
"as long as you don't say too much" ~ the neville brothers.
Chocolate Jesus !!
>
> "Martin" <NOSPAM.mar...@excite.com.REMOVE> wrote
>
> > So what has Yoko done now!!? I put my young kids in front of the TV to
> watch
> > what I thought would be a pleasant festive sing a long... but the
pictures
> > were of death! bodies of babies and young children wrapped up after
being
> > killed. I don't want to belittle the grief of the bereaved or forget the
> > atrocities of the recent war.. but there is a time and a place!!
>
> of course, there are some that would say that yoko's choice of irony is
> brilliant, thought provoking stuff. certainly not me, and i agree with
you.
> there should have at least been a warning as to the graphic content.
freedom
> of expression is fine, but why ruin already-completed music videos with
> horrid, horrible scenes of death?
>
> i haven't even purchased the lennon dvd, and after reading some comments
> here about it, i think i'll seek out the good stuff- like bootlegs of
> original videos. it is a disgrace to tarnish lennon's memory with such
vivid
> and horrible images
oh john, put a sock in the self rightoeous indignation will you?
not everyone is a regressive puritan hack.
> it's rather a "clockwork orange" effect that i find disturbing. a good
> example would be "stuck in the middle with you" by a band called stealer's
> wheel. the song was played in quentin tarantino's movie "reservior dogs"
to
> humorous/disgusting/ironic/violent effect. it was brilliant in my opinion,
> but i will never listen to that song the same way again. the imagery of a
> man being tortured and killed while the song is played made me take the
song
> off of my oldies playlist.
>
> yoko's reworking of the videos of classic lennon songs is in the same vein
> as what tarantino did, but it gets to the point that enough is enough. the
> album cover photo of lennon's blood-smudged glasses after he was murdered
> was powerful stuff, and unsettling. she should have stopped there.
>
> "war is over" was about an entirely different war, and each war has
> different perspectives and repercussions. it's unneccessary to mess with
the
> video when it's point had already been made three decades earlier.
if you cant handle the truth, then dont watch.
JL was a huge fan of the truth.
>
>
> -Lexus Interior?
huh?.......:0
>
>
>
>
Mister Charlie
"here is nowhere" <flu...@foodbowl.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945F1F6...@140.99.99.130...
> Johnny wrote:
>
> > popular song that had a children's choir, no less.
>
>
>
> It has never been about children singing in Sunday school.
To the kids that hear it nowadays on the radio and TV it has no real
connection to any war, just the idea that war is bad.
This video should not have been presented the way it was, or not noted
somehow on the package (even tho it sounds like a Tiipper Gore-ish idea
there was obviously real problems with people expecting a cheery Xmas
video).
>
abe slaney
here is nowhere wrote:
> Johnny wrote:
>
>
>> there was no need to be so brutally graphic on a
>>popular song that had a children's choir, no less.
>
>
>
> John, this song has always been about war.
Actually, it was about 'no war'. And I can't see how juxtaposing the
following lyric with grotesque images of human brutality -
And so this is Christmas
And what have you done
Another year over
And a new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young
can come off as anything but extremely cynical. That's giving the artist
some credit for thinking.
On the other hand it could just be thoughtless, simplistic, heavy-handed
polemic.
Either way, for a Christmas song with some social message I'll take
'Good King Wenceslas' any day
DC
Ehtue
>> > So what has Yoko done now!!? I put my young kids in front of the TV
>> > to
> watch
>> > what I thought would be a pleasant festive sing a long...
>
>>You really should have previewed the disc first.
>
>
> with all due respect, Ed, people shouldn't have to do that. That's why
> they should have had a warning message of some sort on the DVD box.
> *Then* that would warrant previewing it before letting the kids watch
> it. we're talking john lennon here, not black sabbath or slayer.
I disagree. I like the new video. "Like" in the sense of it brings the two
senses of the song together. It's an anti-war song... always has been.. and
there's no more powerful message of anti-war than seeing its effects. It's
not in "bad taste". You should see it, John.
> while he always had strong political views, it never made his videos
> or interviews unwatchable. there was no need to be so brutally graphic
> on a popular song that had a children's choir, no less.
It's not unwatchable, just graphic. But no more so than CNN on occasion.
> freedom of speech is great. lenny bruce finally got some respect
> recently that his rights of free speech were violated. practice all
> the freedom of speech you want, but if you're going to get real nasty,
> let people know in advance whether the presentation might be
> offensive. that way everyone has their freedoms exercised- the freedom
> to watch in horror and the freedom of hitting the eject button.
I think you might be over-reacting to a video you haven't seen.
> shock for the sheer sake of shock is rather dumb. yoko's behavior is
> almost saying, "well, innocent people died horrible deaths in vietnam,
> but let's update the video and feature some new dead bodies".
It's not shock for shock's sake. It's to bring home a reality of war.
> what next, "woman is the nigger of the world" updated with videos of
> blacks being tortured?
Woman Is The Nigger Of The World isn't about blacks, it's about women. Do
you remember the drawing on the cover of the album for that song?
-Ehtue
Ehtue
>> John, this song has always been about war.
>>
>> It has never been about children singing in Sunday school.
>
>
> Well, I always knew that, but it was an ironic statement about the
> Vietnam war, and we all know what happened there. Having a video made
> to show more innocent lives killed in an entirely different war may be
> rather "artsy" and clever pointing out how things haven't changed
> much, but i'd rather not see the stock news footage of more human
> suffering yet again.
>
> We got the message the first time.
The message is worth repeating, imo. It's a way of showing that the song
and sentiment are timeless. It's a powerful piece... as is the song.
Stewball or not ;-)
-Ehtue
Ehtue
>> > there was no need to be so brutally graphic on a
>> > popular song that had a children's choir, no less.
>>
>>
>> John, this song has always been about war.
>>
>> It has never been about children singing in Sunday school.
>
> To the kids that hear it nowadays on the radio and TV it has no real
> connection to any war, just the idea that war is bad.
>
> This video should not have been presented the way it was, or not noted
> somehow on the package (even tho it sounds like a Tiipper Gore-ish idea
> there was obviously real problems with people expecting a cheery Xmas
> video).
That's their problem, if there is one. I would bet that the vast majority
of people who bought a John Lennon video DVD had already heard the Xmas
song and knew it was an anti-war song more than a huggy-Santa song. To see
a anti-war message with a Lennon video should not be too much of a
surprise. And that it's a bit graphic shouldn't be too much of a shock
either. War is hell.
The song itself pits the feelings of Christmas against the war (sure... a
different war). This could have been brought out a lot more graphically in
the video with huggy xmas shots during one part of the song; graphic war
shots in the other; and then split screen of both when both are sung
simultaneously. That would be true to the song.
But it doesn't do that, as I recall. I'll have to view it again.
-Ehtue
Danny Caccavo
"Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote:
> if you cant handle the truth, then dont watch.
>
> JL was a huge fan of the truth.
Oh, please, cut out the worship crap.
dc
Ehtue
> Actually, it was about 'no war'. And I can't see how juxtaposing the
> following lyric with grotesque images of human brutality -
>
> And so this is Christmas
> And what have you done
> Another year over
> And a new one just begun
> And so this is Christmas
> I hope you have fun
> The near and the dear one
> The old and the young
>
> can come off as anything but extremely cynical.
Lennon wrote the song juxtiposed with the lyrics you cited with War is over
if you want it, war is over now. It was he who pitted Christmas with war.
The "message" of the song is "stop the war" or, in the greater sense, "stop
war." The images show a reason to stop it. The new video is a very good
represntation of the song, imo.
> That's giving the artist
> some credit for thinking.
> On the other hand it could just be thoughtless, simplistic, heavy-handed
> polemic.
> Either way, for a Christmas song with some social message I'll take
> 'Good King Wenceslas' any day
Okay. How's the vid for that go?
-Ehtue
dahldude
I was very disppointed with the DVD -
additional bitches:
the Instant Karma alternate video was cool BUT NOT with the 45 mix as
the soundtrack...there's places in the video where John is singing or
vocalizing and the music doesn't match. Watching Mal slam the tambourine
on beats 1 and 3 while the audio is giving us 2 & 4, well, that's just
not right...obviously John was singling along with the single mix for
his TOTP promos, so Mal may have always been off the mark, but at least
give us a real vocal track, Yoko...
The Cold Turkey single with a video of John from the One To One Concert.
The Elephants Memory Saxman right up front with the enire band on stage
apparently miming ?!? Ya think maybe the Live Peace In Toronto footage
might have been more suitable...
Give Peace A Chance is tampered in the same way - instead of the real
deal audio to match the video, we get the released non matching mix
playing along with the video.
I was hoping for "some truth" (like a dvd clean version of The John
Lennon Video Collection - which actually was pretty good) and didn't get
it here. Bogus. I don't feel so bad now: taking the time to burn a DVD
of the original video collection...
abe slaney
Ehtue wrote:
> abe slaney writes:
>>Either way, for a Christmas song with some social message I'll take
>>'Good King Wenceslas' any day
>
>
> Okay. How's the vid for that go?
>
> -Ehtue
Which one, Perry Como or Jim Nabors?
They do both have parental warnings!
DC
Mister Charlie
"Ehtue" <eh...@aa.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945F5B0025...@204.127.199.17...
> Mister Charlie writes:
>
> >> > there was no need to be so brutally graphic on a
> >> > popular song that had a children's choir, no less.
> >>
> >>
> >> John, this song has always been about war.
> >>
> >> It has never been about children singing in Sunday school.
> >
> > To the kids that hear it nowadays on the radio and TV it has no real
> > connection to any war, just the idea that war is bad.
> >
> > This video should not have been presented the way it was, or not
noted
> > somehow on the package (even tho it sounds like a Tiipper Gore-ish
idea
> > there was obviously real problems with people expecting a cheery
Xmas
> > video).
>
> That's their problem, if there is one.
Great sentiment. A bit surprised at it coming from you.
I would bet that the vast majority
> of people who bought a John Lennon video DVD had already heard the
Xmas
> song and knew it was an anti-war song more than a huggy-Santa song.
Nevertheless, it was a period piece. It was about Vietnam, and
coincided with their War Is Over billboard campaign as well. It was a
message for the moment, and that moment is over. I highly doubt John
expected it to become a Christmas classic decades hence, and even if he
did, if he would have wanted a video in that manner. Again, a time and
a place.
To see
> a anti-war message with a Lennon video should not be too much of a
> surprise. And that it's a bit graphic shouldn't be too much of a shock
> either. War is hell.
For adults, sure. For kids? I say no. Depending on the ages and
sensibilities.
>
> The song itself pits the feelings of Christmas against the war
(sure... a
> different war). This could have been brought out a lot more
graphically in
> the video with huggy xmas shots during one part of the song; graphic
war
> shots in the other; and then split screen of both when both are sung
> simultaneously. That would be true to the song.
Yet that gives a cynical message, as if the huggy stuff were false
because of the war. I don't believe that is the message of the song.
It was a song of hope, not dwelling on death and destruction.
>
> But it doesn't do that, as I recall. I'll have to view it again.
Well, one positive note in all this. Perhaps enough parents will
be---rightly or wrongly---up in arms about being caught with this
footage and radio stations quit playing the damned song once and for
all. I can't really stand it.
Mister Charlie
> abe slaney writes:
>
> > Actually, it was about 'no war'. And I can't see how juxtaposing the
> > following lyric with grotesque images of human brutality -
> >
> > And so this is Christmas
> > And what have you done
> > Another year over
> > And a new one just begun
> > And so this is Christmas
> > I hope you have fun
> > The near and the dear one
> > The old and the young
> >
> > can come off as anything but extremely cynical.
>
> Lennon wrote the song juxtiposed with the lyrics you cited with War is
over
> if you want it, war is over now. It was he who pitted Christmas with
war.
He simply tagged the Xmas message with a plea for peace.
> The "message" of the song is "stop the war" or, in the greater sense,
"stop
> war." The images show a reason to stop it. The new video is a very
good
> represntation of the song, imo.
Everyone including the smallest child knows war is bad and should be
stopped. The images are totally unnecessary.
Mister Charlie
"dahldude" <dahl...@aoNOSPAMMAGEl.com> wrote in message
news:dahldude-CBD407...@netnews.attbi.com...
Oh, but according to others John was all about 'truth'...
;-)
Driveby
Yoko,
Is trying to destoy the Beatles and particularily the John Lennon
legend...she is doing a good job of it.
Johnny Dupe
"Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote
> oh john, put a sock in the self rightoeous indignation will you?
Ok, Nick. Sorry i'm such a square. Let's you and I gulp down some bevvies
and watch some holocaust videos and laugh til the cows come home!! Woo hoo!
Then, for fun, we'll watch more dead bodies from some war films and hive a
"thumbs up" to freedom of speech.
> not everyone is a regressive puritan hack.
Thank God, there is only ONE Nick.
> if you cant handle the truth, then dont watch.
I have a very truthful Paris Hilton video i'd love you and your family to
watch. Hey, sex is *beautiful* man. John was all about peace and love, not
war. What, you have a daughter? Oh don't be such a regressive puritan hack.
She can watch porn with us.
>
> JL was a huge fan of the truth.
LOL!! The crackpipe is still about 320 degrees yet!
The Most Exhaulted Potentate Of Love
"Danny Caccavo" <dcac...@comcast.net> wrote
> "Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote:
> > if you cant handle the truth, then dont watch.
> > JL was a huge fan of the truth.
> Oh, please, cut out the worship crap.
Not only that, but Nick is doing a really lame Jack Nicholson impersonation.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate Of Love
"Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote
> Oh, but according to others John was all about 'truth'...
That statement came from a liar, so I guess we should take that with a grain
of salt.
BlackMonk
>
> "Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote
>
> > oh john, put a sock in the self rightoeous indignation will you?
>
> Ok, Nick. Sorry i'm such a square. Let's you and I gulp down some bevvies
> and watch some holocaust videos and laugh til the cows come home!! Woo
hoo!
Because that's all John was about, getting drunk and having fun. Finding any
political content in his music goes against everything he stood for.
Imagine setting footage of the war in Vietnam to a song that was a response
to the war in Vietnam. How inappropriate.
> Then, for fun, we'll watch more dead bodies from some war films and hive a
> "thumbs up" to freedom of speech.
>
> > not everyone is a regressive puritan hack.
>
> Thank God, there is only ONE Nick.
>
> > if you cant handle the truth, then dont watch.
>
> I have a very truthful Paris Hilton video i'd love you and your family to
> watch. Hey, sex is *beautiful* man. John was all about peace and love, not
> war. What, you have a daughter? Oh don't be such a regressive puritan
hack.
> She can watch porn with us.
>
Because EVERYTHING in the world must be acceptable to show to young
children.
BlackMonk
"Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:bslroj$e1fq2$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
So Yoko should take the inappropriate expectations of other people into
account?
John Lennon never made music or videos specifically for young children. It's
a mistake to assume that anything he produced would be acceptable for them
without previewing it first.
BlackMonk
> Well, one positive note in all this. Perhaps enough parents will
> be---rightly or wrongly---up in arms about being caught with this
> footage and radio stations quit playing the damned song once and for
> all. I can't really stand it.
>
Do you think we can get Yoko to do a video for Wonderful Christmastime? and
Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer?
JLW44
>>> video).
>>
>
>
>exactly.
I was expecting a John Lennon dvd compilation. Therefore I was expecting all
the originals and then some songs that were added to flesh it out. That is not
what was on the dvd. To me, that was the implication of this video collection,
to remain as true to the originals as possible.
If alterations were to be made, I believe that should have been advertised.
When I came to the Happy Xmas video, I was expecting what I remembered. If that
were the original, than fine. Fortunately I was able to rent this through my
dvd service at no extra charge to me. A great way to preview things. Now I know
I don't want to purchase it.
BlackMonk
> Everyone including the smallest child knows war is bad and should be
> stopped.
You're not paying attention. Everyone pays lip service to the idea that it
would be nice if there weren't any more wars. A large percentage of the
population still think of war as a proper solution to international
disputes.
Remember after 9/11? What did you hear more often, "let's find and destroy
the infrastrure of Al-quieda" or "let's bomb the middle east into a sheet of
glass?"
Mister Charlie
> Ehtue wrote:
>
> >> there was obviously real problems with people expecting a cheery
Xmas
> >> video).
> >
> > That's their problem
>
>
>
Again, nice attitude guys.
Mister Charlie
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bsmvrr$emftg$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:bslroj$e1fq2$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "here is nowhere" <flu...@foodbowl.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns945F1F6...@140.99.99.130...
> > > Johnny wrote:
> > >
> > > > there was no need to be so brutally graphic on a
> > > > popular song that had a children's choir, no less.
> > >
> > >
> > > John, this song has always been about war.
> > >
> > > It has never been about children singing in Sunday school.
> >
> > To the kids that hear it nowadays on the radio and TV it has no real
> > connection to any war, just the idea that war is bad.
> >
> > This video should not have been presented the way it was, or not
noted
> > somehow on the package (even tho it sounds like a Tiipper Gore-ish
idea
> > there was obviously real problems with people expecting a cheery
Xmas
> > video).
>
> So Yoko should take the inappropriate expectations of other people
into
> account?
Yoko should do a LOT of things. That's not the point.
'Inappropriate'? Your word, of course (in line with your usual way of
discussing).
>
> John Lennon never made music or videos specifically for young
children. It's
> a mistake to assume that anything he produced would be acceptable for
them
> without previewing it first.
Really? And how many kids were brought up with AHDN, YS, Help? It is
SOOOO unfair of parents these days to expect something other than what
they got? (And before you split the hairs to explain these were Beatle
movies, the Beatles were how most everyone got introduced to John, who
was indeed a part of that group.)
Take your hero worship blinders off, man. A song about Xmas doesn't
need dead bodies. It could have been saved for one of your fave songs
off of STINYC.
>
>
Mister Charlie
I hate the first equally with Joko's.
And the second doesn't even merit conversation.
>
>
Mister Charlie
>
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:bsm6gs$e8ib4$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Everyone including the smallest child knows war is bad and should be
> > stopped.
>
> You're not paying attention. Everyone pays lip service to the idea
that it
> would be nice if there weren't any more wars. A large percentage of
the
> population still think of war as a proper solution to international
> disputes.
No, Tom, YOU are not paying attention. I'm fully aware of the point
being made by people like yourself. I simply disagree with it. Is that
ok with you??
How exactly does Yoko (or whomever) showing gruesome footage on an Xmas
song video going to change ANY of the above? Adults have seen this
stuff, kids will be disturbed. Enough to run out and end war? Of
course not.
SO what exactly do you expect to happen to those who watch this?
(Adults, I mean.)
You think war will end tomorrow by popular fiat because of Yoko's brave
stance? Horseshit.
I don't say this is unexpected nor evil. I simply think a heads up
(just as news shows where you EXPECT to see this stuff do) would have
been nice. Not everyone is as hip as you. Some adults may actually BE
unaware of what to expect from a Lennon video. But then that's their
fault, innit?
>
> Remember after 9/11? What did you hear more often, "let's find and
destroy
> the infrastrure of Al-quieda" or "let's bomb the middle east into a
sheet of
> glass?"
Irrelevant, inflammatory and absurd.
>
>
Mister Charlie
> "Mister Charlie" wrote
> > I highly doubt John
> > expected it to become a Christmas classic decades hence
>
>
I'm aware of that, that was my point.
>
> > and even if he
> > did, if he would have wanted a video in that manner.
>
>
> come on. John was always 'giving us some truth'
'Always'?? C'mon yourseves. People are elevating John's truth-telling
ability and desire to mythical status. He was brutally honest at times,
not always a virtue. But to act as if he were always and constantly a
paragon of integrity is nonsense, and certainly no excuse for Yoko 3
decades later to use a bit of restraint or to at least take a whole 30
seconds to have a mild warning inserted somewhere on the package.
Are you suggesting
> that if he had been alive today, he would
> a) have somehow grown more shy about telling it like it is
Sure. Why not? No one knows ANYthing about how Lennon would think or
be today. Not even Yoko.
> b) have changed the message of this partcilar track.
There's nothing wrong with the message of war being over. It's an
abstract concept. It doesn't NEED visuals to get across. Did you
misunderstand the concept of the song for 30 years because you never saw
dead burnt bodies with it? Of course not.
>
> And anyways, Yoko (of all people) knew what her late husband was
trying
> to say on this track.........that is, better than you or me.
Better than we, yes. 30 years hence? Shee-it. She knows what John
last thought in Dec. 1980, and that's all.
>
>
>
>
> > Again, a time and a place.
>
>
> hang on Charlie.
>
> The video on this new DVD that specifically deals with war, and
wanting
> it over, focuses on images of war (and their repercussions).
So this -entire- video then is an anti-war piece and it's just a
coincidence the Xmas song is on there? Oh, well then sorry, I was
misinformed.
>
> > For adults, sure. For kids? I say no. Depending on the ages and
> > sensibilities.
>
> okay then....do we ban kids from watching the evening news?
Many parents do just that, depending on the age of the child. ANd many
children have no interest in that grown-up stuff. And on the news you
KNOW what is coming. And even THEN they advise you of upcoming graphic
content.
Do we ban
> MTV from our living rooms...after all they have artists that promote
> drugs, rape and all sorts of horrid stuff.
Many parents do.
>
> Or what about the Christian angle also....do we put a sticker on this
> DVD and warn Christians about the lyric that they may find offensive
in
> Imagine.
Ever hear of Tipper Gore?
>
>
> As one poster in the thread has already said, there is an opportunity
> here for a parent to talk through the issues raised in some of these
> videos...eg Happy Xmas, Imagine.
No one needs to watch dead bodies on a Xmas video to have an opportunity
to talk to their kids. Bogus argument.
>
> I know in one local school here, a teacher gave the kids a lesson on
the
> historic issues raised in a big hit of the time - We Didn't Start the
> Fire (by Billy Joel)
Totally different.
>
>
BlackMonk
>
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:bsmvrr$emftg$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
> into
> > account?
>
> Yoko should do a LOT of things. That's not the point.
>
> 'Inappropriate'? Your word, of course (in line with your usual way of
> discussing).
>
>
Can't help bringing personal flames into this, can you?
Inappropriate because they deal solely with the person's desires of what the
song should be.
> >
> > John Lennon never made music or videos specifically for young
> children. It's
> > a mistake to assume that anything he produced would be acceptable for
> them
> > without previewing it first.
>
> Really? And how many kids were brought up with AHDN, YS, Help?
They weren't made specifically for young children.
> Take your hero worship blinders off, man. A song about Xmas doesn't
> need dead bodies.
It doesn't need anything, including your pronouncements about what is and
isn't proper for it.
Hold on, let me look at my copy of the song.
Funny, I see John's name in the writer's credits. I see Yoko's name. But I
don't see yours.
It could have been saved for one of your fave songs
> off of STINYC.
> >
When did I say STINYC is one of my favorite albums. I simply said I
preferred it to one specific mediocre McCartney album.
BlackMonk
>
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:bsn077$e6inv$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> > news:bsm6gs$e8ib4$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > Everyone including the smallest child knows war is bad and should be
> > > stopped.
> >
> > You're not paying attention. Everyone pays lip service to the idea
> that it
> > would be nice if there weren't any more wars. A large percentage of
> the
> > population still think of war as a proper solution to international
> > disputes.
>
> No, Tom, YOU are not paying attention. I'm fully aware of the point
> being made by people like yourself. I simply disagree with it. Is that
> ok with you??
>
Not if you're saying unrealistic things.
> How exactly does Yoko (or whomever) showing gruesome footage on an Xmas
> song video going to change ANY of the above? Adults have seen this
> stuff, kids will be disturbed. Enough to run out and end war? Of
> course not.
>
So we should just pretend there's nothing gruesome about war? Or maybe we
should only mention the unpleasant aspects of war at "appropriate" times.
That's a great idea. Compartmentalize anything unpleasant about war, so we
can all assume that war doesn't really touch us.
> SO what exactly do you expect to happen to those who watch this?
> (Adults, I mean.)
>
> You think war will end tomorrow by popular fiat because of Yoko's brave
> stance? Horseshit.
No one said anything about "tomorrow."
>
> I don't say this is unexpected nor evil. I simply think a heads up
> (just as news shows where you EXPECT to see this stuff do) would have
> been nice. Not everyone is as hip as you. Some adults may actually BE
> unaware of what to expect from a Lennon video. But then that's their
> fault, innit?
> >
It's their fault if they play it for their young children without previewing
it. And you know what? EVERYONE buys records, movie, DVDs, etc, without
getting exactly what they expected. It's no big tragedy.
> > Remember after 9/11? What did you hear more often, "let's find and
> destroy
> > the infrastrure of Al-quieda" or "let's bomb the middle east into a
> sheet of
> > glass?"
>
> Irrelevant, inflammatory and absurd.
>
>
Right. Showing that some people AREN'T that in favor of stopping war is
completely irrelevant as a response to a statement that everyone wants to
stop war.
BlackMonk
I read your posts expecting something funny or informative about The
Beatles. I think you should put a warning in every subject header when you
fail to live up to my expectations.
Mister Charlie
>
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:bsn494$ej8db$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:bsmvrr$emftg$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > So Yoko should take the inappropriate expectations of other people
> > into
> > > account?
> >
> > Yoko should do a LOT of things. That's not the point.
> >
> > 'Inappropriate'? Your word, of course (in line with your usual way
of
> > discussing).
> >
> >
>
> Can't help bringing personal flames into this, can you?
I am commenting on your usual tactics. Call it a flame if you wish, but
coming from you that is a rather amusing designation.
>
> Inappropriate because they deal solely with the person's desires of
what the
> song should be.
And why would someone generally unfamiliar with John's video work be
considered inappropiate for not expecting dead bodies on a Xmas song?
>
> > >
> > > John Lennon never made music or videos specifically for young
> > children. It's
> > > a mistake to assume that anything he produced would be acceptable
for
> > them
> > > without previewing it first.
> >
> > Really? And how many kids were brought up with AHDN, YS, Help?
>
> They weren't made specifically for young children.
How young are we talking here? Teenagers are certainly children.
Perhaps the OP needs to define how old his kids are and we'd have a good
idea of what the issue is here. Nevertheless, kids of ALL ages embraced
the Beatles, even in the 60's. Therefore, not a valid argument.
>
> > Take your hero worship blinders off, man. A song about Xmas
doesn't
> > need dead bodies.
>
> It doesn't need anything, including your pronouncements about what is
and
> isn't proper for it.
I don't give a calf's ass what Yoko decides to slap onto John's music.
I simply agree with the OP that a warning would be nice. Personally I
have no use for their video work anyway, as it is all pretentious and
boring.
>
> Hold on, let me look at my copy of the song.
>
> Funny, I see John's name in the writer's credits. I see Yoko's name.
But I
> don't see yours.
Ar ar. More of my 'inappropriate' flaming?
>
> It could have been saved for one of your fave songs
> > off of STINYC.
> > >
>
> When did I say STINYC is one of my favorite albums. I simply said I
> preferred it to one specific mediocre McCartney album.
So now you backtrack? Whatever. I wasn't assigning you the task of
having to wear the mantle around your neck for life. STINYC was a
political album, hence my remark. You sure take things personally,
don't you?
>
>
Mister Charlie
> "Mister Charlie" wrote:
>
>
> > A song about Xmas doesn't need dead bodies.
>
>
It's a song about Xmas and hope, including a wish for no more war ('in
other words, 'peace on earth, good will to men').
It is NOT an anti-war song that just happens to mention Xmas in passing.
>
BlackMonk
>
> Are you suggesting
> > that if he had been alive today, he would
> > a) have somehow grown more shy about telling it like it is
>
> Sure. Why not? No one knows ANYthing about how Lennon would think or
> be today. Not even Yoko.
Are you suggesting that your guesses as to what Lennon would think are as
valid as Yoko's?
> > b) have changed the message of this partcilar track.
>
> There's nothing wrong with the message of war being over. It's an
> abstract concept. It doesn't NEED visuals to get across. Did you
> misunderstand the concept of the song for 30 years because you never saw
> dead burnt bodies with it? Of course not.
>
Does Yoko tell you how to do your job?
> >
> > And anyways, Yoko (of all people) knew what her late husband was
> trying
> > to say on this track.........that is, better than you or me.
>
> Better than we, yes. 30 years hence? Shee-it. She knows what John
> last thought in Dec. 1980, and that's all.
She did co-write the song, and she knows better than anyone what she wanted
to say. What gives you the right to tell her how to make a video for her own
song?
Mister Charlie
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in news:bsn421
> $ei6ps$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de:
> ignorant as to what this track is about.
John's? No. Yoko's? Yes, because only her and/or her production
company can do something (make a small and effective note on the
package) to allieve other's ignorance as to the contents. How tough is
that?
>
> In order to cater for everyone, do we water down these things to the
> lowest common denominator?
Ever watch TV? Let's be real. And kids are HUGE Beatle fans, weaned on
them by their own parents. I don't see adding a warning for parents to
be in any way a burden on viewers like yourself or Yoko. And it would
possibly be a big help for unaware parents (or perhaps not, it is all an
academic excercise here).
>
> Let's get real here. If I turn on MTV, I'll get some video about
'Smack
> up my bitch'
Let's get real indeed. These examples have nothing to do with the point
at hand. Parents can and do lock out MTV. They expect they need to. A
John and Yoko tape does not carry the same connotations. Sure, for hip
old folks like us, but certainly not for everyone. WHY would -anyone-
expect dead bodies on a Xmas song??????
>
> If having to sit through the video for 'Happy Xmas (War is Over)' is
the
> worst that some people have to put up with, then I don't think some
> folks have too much to worry about.
And others have never had kids they had to worry about.
>
> And if parents and their kids are ignorant as to this track, and what
> war in general is about, then they might actually now learn something
> about the reality of what John was singing about.
Let them learn in school, where it's appropriate, not for a Xmas shared
family experience.
>
> And if push comes to shove, and they still want a nice positive smiley
> up tempo take on war, then I suggest the purchase of Pipes of Peace.
On
> that video, enemies shake hands and play football during a temporary
> ceasefire in hostilities (and based on true events).
All this video needed was a small squib identifying a potential problem.
Why does this threaten you so?
dahldude
"Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote:
> > it here. Bogus. I don't feel so bad now: taking the time to burn a DVD
> > of the original video collection...
>
> Oh, but according to others John was all about 'truth'...
>
> ;-)
Yeah - in their very small fairytale fed minds...and the Beatles smoked
pot with the Queen and Elvis and then they all had a big jam session
with Maharishi doing Ms. Farrow - wow
;-)
Re: the very controversial Happy Xmas video, what should have happened
in the name of "Art" (since Yoko loves to push the envelope), she should
have done some addtitional footage with kids from the choir getting
sizzled, dismembered, shrapnelled, etc. one by one as they sing the
chorus.
I mean, if you're gonna rock some sensibilities, go all the way with
it...
And if we want to get really *truthful* about freaking "war", it's all
about the rich and ruling classes hanging on to or advancing their
wealth, power, and influence.
How about that Cat Stevens? There's someone who put (or didn't put) his
money where his mouth is / was.
John safely hid out in - in the opinion of not a few - the belly of the
Beast, so let's not get too altruistic, Cub Scouts, and believe too hard
in John as Jesus or Gandhi - John said he didn't believe in them, but
then said he was a Zen Christian...
<sigh>
John's "truth" was always changing.
"Somewhere in the synapse of realizing all of parts of an historic event
there is the truth."
Mister Charlie
>
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:bsn4h8$elvgr$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:bsn077$e6inv$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bsm6gs$e8ib4$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > Everyone including the smallest child knows war is bad and
should be
> > > > stopped.
> > >
> > > You're not paying attention. Everyone pays lip service to the idea
> > that it
> > > would be nice if there weren't any more wars. A large percentage
of
> > the
> > > population still think of war as a proper solution to
international
> > > disputes.
> >
> > No, Tom, YOU are not paying attention. I'm fully aware of the point
> > being made by people like yourself. I simply disagree with it. Is
that
> > ok with you??
> >
>
> Not if you're saying unrealistic things.
Such as?
How is it unrealistic to ask that a blurb be added to the outer
packaging?
Now, how unrealistic is it to expect every parent in the world to be
fully aware of what Yoko decides to put on her dead husband's music?
>
> > How exactly does Yoko (or whomever) showing gruesome footage on an
Xmas
> > song video going to change ANY of the above? Adults have seen this
> > stuff, kids will be disturbed. Enough to run out and end war? Of
> > course not.
> >
>
> So we should just pretend there's nothing gruesome about war?
There's a time and a place. Period. Simple.
Or maybe we
> should only mention the unpleasant aspects of war at "appropriate"
times.
Precisely.
> That's a great idea. Compartmentalize anything unpleasant about war,
so we
> can all assume that war doesn't really touch us.
As opposed to splashing ox blood over anyone who walks by so they won't
forget war is bad? Incredibly facile argument here, Tom. No one is
unaware war is nasty, not even young children.
>
> > SO what exactly do you expect to happen to those who watch this?
> > (Adults, I mean.)
> >
> > You think war will end tomorrow by popular fiat because of Yoko's
brave
> > stance? Horseshit.
>
> No one said anything about "tomorrow."
Thirty years hence? Their 'war is over' campaign hasn't done anything
YET. How long should we wait? How many images do we need seared into
OUR brains while it is the greed and bloodlust of the rulers (to which
we have damn little control) which causes and facilitates these wars?
>
> >
> > I don't say this is unexpected nor evil. I simply think a heads up
> > (just as news shows where you EXPECT to see this stuff do) would
have
> > been nice. Not everyone is as hip as you. Some adults may actually
BE
> > unaware of what to expect from a Lennon video. But then that's
their
> > fault, innit?
> > >
>
> It's their fault if they play it for their young children without
previewing
> it. And you know what? EVERYONE buys records, movie, DVDs, etc,
without
> getting exactly what they expected. It's no big tragedy.
Again, that is flaccid thinking boyo. No parent alive can preview
EVERYthing, especially if the product carries a reasonable expectation
of safe viewing. How many kids you got, Tom?
>
Mister Charlie
> "Mister Charlie" wrote:
>
>
> > There's nothing wrong with the message of war being over. It's an
> > abstract concept. It doesn't NEED visuals to get across.
>
>
>
> If the visual aspect upsets you, then just listen to your CD track.
I have no intention of it. I won't listen to the CD either, can't stand
it.
This isn't about ME. It's about the fact that some feel that their
opinion should cover all people all over the world, young and old alike.
Pretty damned broadreaching, especially as the cure is so easy and
inexpensive as to be a non-issue. I'm not saying Yoko can't or
shouldn't put whatever images she wants on her video. Just mention that
on the outside box.
Again, how exactly does this impact you?
>
>
>
> BTW The video got great reviews over here when it was aired on an
early
> morning tv show.
>
Mister Charlie
>
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:bsn4u5$efe9m$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
>
> > Are you suggesting
> > > that if he had been alive today, he would
> > > a) have somehow grown more shy about telling it like it is
> >
> > Sure. Why not? No one knows ANYthing about how Lennon would think
or
> > be today. Not even Yoko.
>
> Are you suggesting that your guesses as to what Lennon would think are
as
> valid as Yoko's?
Are you suggesting that the Strait of Gibraltar is actually a
white-black hole where UFO's eminate from?
>
>
>
> > > b) have changed the message of this partcilar track.
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with the message of war being over. It's an
> > abstract concept. It doesn't NEED visuals to get across. Did you
> > misunderstand the concept of the song for 30 years because you never
saw
> > dead burnt bodies with it? Of course not.
> >
>
> Does Yoko tell you how to do your job?
Try addressing the statements *I* make as opposed to attepting to set up
your strawman arguments.
>
> > >
> > > And anyways, Yoko (of all people) knew what her late husband was
> > trying
> > > to say on this track.........that is, better than you or me.
> >
> > Better than we, yes. 30 years hence? Shee-it. She knows what John
> > last thought in Dec. 1980, and that's all.
>
> She did co-write the song, and she knows better than anyone what she
wanted
> to say. What gives you the right to tell her how to make a video for
her own
> song?
I don't care if she cavorts naked with a pentagram on her. I am NOT
telling Yoko what to do with the video (LAST TIME!). I'm saying the OP
was certainly within his rights to wonder why there was no warning ON
THE BOX.
Got it?
>
>
Mister Charlie
Not even worth responding to. You're simply over-emotional. Have a
brandy.
Mister Charlie
>
> >> > There's nothing wrong with the message of war being over. It's
an
> >> > abstract concept. It doesn't NEED visuals to get across.
> >>
> >>
> >> well then don't buy the DVD.
> >>
> >> If the visual aspect upsets you, then just listen to your CD track.
> >
> > I have no intention of it. I won't listen to the CD either, can't
> > stand it.
>
>
that
> you hate?
I simply agreed with the OP. If you don't have kids then why are YOU
wasting all your time on this thread? ;-)
>
> And if the warning label is such a big issue, why don't we all leave
it
> to the censors on both sides of the Atlantic. After all, they are a
> third party with no axe to grind. If I recall, didn't the the British
> Board of Censors (or whatever their name is) give it an E or something
> close. Those folks are the specialists when it comes to deciding upon
> warning labels and certificates. They judge these types of issues
each
> and every day of their working lives.
>
> The more I read the input from those who deride this video, the more I
> think of that ridiculous woman who lambasted John in an
> interview.....Gloria Emerson
gee thanks.
>
> If you're wanting nice sickly sweet, middle class, mid 60s, mop top
> type, skin deep, runaround the field/deserted aerodrome, waving hands
in
> the air, making faces, type videos, then much of John's music after
> 1967/68 will be a disappointment.
One last time: the video is not the problem (I don't think the war
images are necessary but I don't care if they're there). I simply think
this OP got blindsided and whether or not he/she should have known about
the content (and if it's new how could they?) a warning on the box would
have helped. Perhaps.
>
>
>
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
(*sarcastically*)
> Imagine setting footage of the war in Vietnam to a song that was a
response
> to the war in Vietnam. How inappropriate.
Imagine people buying a *music video* and having to watch that crap.
> > I have a very truthful Paris Hilton video i'd love you and your family
to
> > watch. Hey, sex is *beautiful* man. John was all about peace and love,
not
> > war. What, you have a daughter? Oh don't be such a regressive puritan
> hack.
> > She can watch porn with us.
> Because EVERYTHING in the world must be acceptable to show to young
> children.
Gotta love this. All reasoning gets thrown out the window just so you can
find something to argue about. Okay okay, it's freedom of speech- you can
watch your dead bodies during a Lennon song, and i'll watch the JFK
assassination on infinite repeat. Cuz you know we can all boast to our
friends that we're hip. "Murder shmurder! Don't be such a wuss. It's only
brutal death. Get over it."
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
> So Yoko should take the inappropriate expectations of other people into
> account?
Yup. That's why I proudly wear a Beatles Yellow Submarine watch that Yoko
blocked from being marketed. Paid a good chunk of money on ebay for it, and
I like wearing it knowing she was against that sort of thing. Heaven forbid,
we don't need any Beatles cartoon figures on merchandise. That's just
inappropriate.
> John Lennon never made music or videos specifically for young children.
It's
> a mistake to assume that anything he produced would be acceptable for them
> without previewing it first.
No one should have to preview a video by one of The Beatles, Tom. No one
ever had to before, why do they have to now-nearly 25 years after John's
death?
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
> Hold on, let me look at my copy of the song.
>
> Funny, I see John's name in the writer's credits. I see Yoko's name. But I
> don't see yours.
Paul just wrote a song about Jeffrey Dahmer. I can't wait to see the
video!!!
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
> "Mister Charlie" wrote:
>
>
> > A song about Xmas doesn't need dead bodies.
>
>
And stock footage of dead bodies helps in what way?
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote
> How exactly does Yoko (or whomever) showing gruesome footage on an Xmas
> song video going to change ANY of the above? Adults have seen this
> stuff, kids will be disturbed. Enough to run out and end war? Of
> course not.
>
> SO what exactly do you expect to happen to those who watch this?
> (Adults, I mean.)
>
> You think war will end tomorrow by popular fiat because of Yoko's brave
> stance? Horseshit.
(*applause*)
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote ]
> So we should just pretend there's nothing gruesome about war? Or maybe we
> should only mention the unpleasant aspects of war at "appropriate" times.
> That's a great idea. Compartmentalize anything unpleasant about war, so we
> can all assume that war doesn't really touch us.
How many times do we need to see the images of the effects of war? They're
etched in our brains forever. A good example is the Doors' powerful (and
banned) video for "The Unknown Soldier". When I first saw it, my jaw
dropped, and the horrible images of dead soldiers with flies over their
faces added to the overall effect of the song. Yoko seemed to try the same
type of routine with the new Happy Xmas video.
Sure, it might seem like powerful stuff right now, but the video itself will
get *awful old* real damn quick. Who in their right mind wants to see that
crap over and over again? There are many videos (like my bootleg of all the
Beatles promo clips) that are fun to watch again and again and never get
boring.
With John Lennon not being around any longer, it would be nice to have a
decent video presentation of his work that would be timeless. Now it looks
like a DVD that deperately begs to have a remote control in hand to skip
over all the shit.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
> She did co-write the song, and she knows better than anyone what she
wanted
> to say. What gives you the right to tell her how to make a video for her
own
> song?
Too bad she just didn't make the video for herself then, so she can suffer
through it.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"JLW44" <jl...@aol.com> wrote
> When I came to the Happy Xmas video, I was expecting what I remembered. If
that
> were the original, than fine. Fortunately I was able to rent this through
my
> dvd service at no extra charge to me. A great way to preview things. Now I
know
> I don't want to purchase it.
I was able to see the video via Kazaa file-sharing service. Like every bad
film, one viewing was enough. Since i'm strapped for cash, i'll spend my
money on the new My Morning Jacket CD instead. At least I know i'll get more
enjoyment out of that.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"here is nowhere" <flu...@foodbowl.com> wrote
> But Charlie, it's not John (or Yoko's) fault that some folks are
> ignorant as to what this track is about.
People *know* what the track is about- that isn't the issue. We're talking
about the video representation of the song. The video has a very short shelf
life, but since it has Lennon's name all over it, it will sell like
hotcakes.
Chocolate Jesus !!
"Danny Caccavo" <dcac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dcaccavo-90CE8E...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <bslqs3$kas$2...@pita.alt.net>,
> "Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote:
>
> > if you cant handle the truth, then dont watch.
> >
> > JL was a huge fan of the truth.
>
> Oh, please, cut out the worship crap.
i don't "worship" lennon, you idiot.
Chocolate Jesus !!
"Johnny Dupe" <du...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:9QxHb.15835$fq1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...> > oh john, put a sock in the self rightoeous indignation will you?
>
> Ok, Nick. Sorry i'm such a square.
it's not that you're a square, it's that you're an idiot.
but i digress.......
>Let's you and I gulp down some bevvies
> and watch some holocaust videos and laugh til the cows come home!! Woo
hoo!
dont be a hysterical old woman, john.
grow a backbone for once, will ya?
sheesh....
> Then, for fun, we'll watch more dead bodies from some war films and hive a
> "thumbs up" to freedom of speech.
>
> > not everyone is a regressive puritan hack.
>
> Thank God, there is only ONE Nick.
>
> > if you cant handle the truth, then dont watch.
>
> I have a very truthful Paris Hilton video i'd love you and your family to
> watch. Hey, sex is *beautiful* man. John was all about peace and love, not
> war. What, you have a daughter? Oh don't be such a regressive puritan
hack.
> She can watch porn with us.
*yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn*
> > JL was a huge fan of the truth.
>
> LOL!! The crackpipe is still about 320 degrees yet!
don't worry, webby, the truth *will* set you free....but first it will piss
you off........:0).
Chocolate Jesus !!
"The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love" <lux_in...@cramps.com> wrote in
message news:KoGHb.15925$fq1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
>
> (*sarcastically*)
>
> > Imagine setting footage of the war in Vietnam to a song that was a
> response
> > to the war in Vietnam. How inappropriate.
>
> Imagine people buying a *music video* and having to watch that crap.
>
>
> > > I have a very truthful Paris Hilton video i'd love you and your family
> to
> > > watch. Hey, sex is *beautiful* man. John was all about peace and love,
> not
> > > war. What, you have a daughter? Oh don't be such a regressive puritan
> > hack.
> > > She can watch porn with us.
>
> > Because EVERYTHING in the world must be acceptable to show to young
> > children.
>
> Gotta love this. All reasoning gets thrown out the window just so you can
> find something to argue about. Okay okay, it's freedom of speech-
right, so shutup.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"here is nowhere" <flu...@foodbowl.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945FD27D...@140.99.99.130...
> "The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love" wrote:
>
> >> You think war will end tomorrow by popular fiat because of Yoko's brave
> >> stance? Horseshit.
> >
> > (*applause*)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Lennon: If I'm gonna get on the front page, I might as well get on
the
> front page with the word "PEACE".
>
> Gloria Emerson: But you've made yourself ridiculous!
>
> John Lennon: To some people, I don't care....if it saves lives!
>
> Gloria Emerson: You don't think you've - ohhhh. My dear boy you're living
> in a nether nether land.
John Lennon didn't save any lives. None.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote
> > Gotta love this. All reasoning gets thrown out the window just so you
can
> > find something to argue about. Okay okay, it's freedom of speech-
>
> right, so shutup.
Looks like Nick got evicted from his dumpster again...
BlackMonk
"The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love" <lux_in...@cramps.com> wrote in
message news:KoGHb.15925$fq1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
>
> (*sarcastically*)
>
> > Imagine setting footage of the war in Vietnam to a song that was a
> response
> > to the war in Vietnam. How inappropriate.
>
> Imagine people buying a *music video* and having to watch that crap.
>
No one forced you to buy it.
>
> > > I have a very truthful Paris Hilton video i'd love you and your family
> to
> > > watch. Hey, sex is *beautiful* man. John was all about peace and love,
> not
> > > war. What, you have a daughter? Oh don't be such a regressive puritan
> > hack.
> > > She can watch porn with us.
>
> > Because EVERYTHING in the world must be acceptable to show to young
> > children.
>
> Gotta love this. All reasoning gets thrown out the window just so you can
> find something to argue about.
I didn't start this argument. Why should anyone be required to make
something acceptable to show to young children? As far as I know, no one
recommended showing it to children.
Okay okay, it's freedom of speech- you can
> watch your dead bodies during a Lennon song, and i'll watch the JFK
> assassination on infinite repeat. Cuz you know we can all boast to our
> friends that we're hip. "Murder shmurder! Don't be such a wuss. It's only
> brutal death. Get over it."
No one ever said it was hip, either. It was an artistic decision, made by
the co-writer of the song, no less. So spare me the self-righteous
indignation.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
Yeah. the video blows. Some people just shouldn't mess around with history.
BlackMonk
"Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:bsn5sh$eat6f$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...> news:bsn5ag$efsrn$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> > news:bsn494$ej8db$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...> > > news:bsmvrr$emftg$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > So Yoko should take the inappropriate expectations of other people
> > > into
> > > > account?
> > >
> > >
> > > 'Inappropriate'? Your word, of course (in line with your usual way
> of
> > > discussing).
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Can't help bringing personal flames into this, can you?
>
> I am commenting on your usual tactics. Call it a flame if you wish, but
> coming from you that is a rather amusing designation.
You're lying about my usual tactic. Just like you always do. You can't stick
to an issue, because the positions you take usually are indefensible, so you
try to attack me.
>
> >
> > Inappropriate because they deal solely with the person's desires of
> what the
> > song should be.
>
> And why would someone generally unfamiliar with John's video work be
> considered inappropiate for not expecting dead bodies on a Xmas song?
> >
You said it yourself. The person is unfamiliar with John's work, so having
any expectations is unrealistic.
> > > >
> > > > John Lennon never made music or videos specifically for young
> > > children. It's
> > > > a mistake to assume that anything he produced would be acceptable
> for
> > > them
> > > > without previewing it first.
> > >
> > > Really? And how many kids were brought up with AHDN, YS, Help?
> >
> > They weren't made specifically for young children.
>
> How young are we talking here? Teenagers are certainly children.
All of them? 18-year olds, too?
"Young children" are pre-teens. A thirteen year old is certainly old enough
to see the news.
> Perhaps the OP needs to define how old his kids are and we'd have a good
> idea of what the issue is here. Nevertheless, kids of ALL ages embraced
> the Beatles, even in the 60's. Therefore, not a valid argument.
> >
They "embraced" The Beatles. I said the work wasn't made for them. Aside
from the song "Yellow Submarine" nothing the Beatles did was made for young
children.
> > >
> > When did I say STINYC is one of my favorite albums. I simply said I
> > preferred it to one specific mediocre McCartney album.
>
> So now you backtrack?
No, I never said it was one of my favorite albums. If you claim I did,
you're either imagining things or a liar. Which is it?
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
> "The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love" wrote
>
> > I was able to see the video via Kazaa file-sharing service. Like every
> > bad film, one viewing was enough.
>
>
>
....says the normally-rational man who posted in this thread over 20
times....
BlackMonk
>
> No one should have to preview a video by one of The Beatles, Tom. No one
> ever had to before, why do they have to now-nearly 25 years after John's
> death?
Never? I seem to recall that similar images were included in a film of a
Paul McCartney concert. And surely the nude photo of John and Yoko was
included in a film or two.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"here is nowhere" <flu...@foodbowl.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945FD42D...@140.99.99.130...
> "The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love" wrote:
>
> > The video has a very short shelf
> > life, but since it has Lennon's name all over it, it will sell like
> > hotcakes.
>
>
>
> Do you like any of his music, after 'She Loves You'?
well, i am one of your online friends hoping Nicky wouldn't find me, but it
didn't work. naturally, i am a huge lennon fan. i just hate when people try
and destroy his legacy by making a subpar video with a concept that has been
used by countless of musicians in the 60's (the obligatory dead bodies film
footage to make their video "cutting edge"). blah!
-johnny dupe, the most *exhausted* ex-rmb fan
BlackMonk
I wasn't referring to that. It's unrealistic to say they shouldn't have made
the video based on the expectations of people unfamilair with them.
> Now, how unrealistic is it to expect every parent in the world to be
> fully aware of what Yoko decides to put on her dead husband's music?
No one said they had to be fully aware of it, but they should be fully aware
of what happens in a video before they give it to their children, especially
if the video is of music that WASN'T made for children. This isn't moptop
Beatles. It's not a cartoon. It's solo John Lennon, made during a time when
he was definitely making music for adults.
> > That's a great idea. Compartmentalize anything unpleasant about war,
> so we
> > can all assume that war doesn't really touch us.
>
> As opposed to splashing ox blood over anyone who walks by so they won't
> forget war is bad? Incredibly facile argument here, Tom. No one is
> unaware war is nasty, not even young children.
>
Some people need reminders.
> >
> > > SO what exactly do you expect to happen to those who watch this?
> > > (Adults, I mean.)
> > >
> > > You think war will end tomorrow by popular fiat because of Yoko's
> brave
> > > stance? Horseshit.
> >
> > No one said anything about "tomorrow."
>
> Thirty years hence? Their 'war is over' campaign hasn't done anything
> YET. How long should we wait?
As long as it takes. We're talking about changing an attitude that has been
ingrained in the entire world for millenia. It's pretty selfish to think "we
can't stop war in my lifetime, so it isn't worth doing."
And as for not having done "anything" yet. I'd say that you're wrong. It
hasn't stopped war, but there's more questioning of military action than
there was 50 years ago.
How many images do we need seared into
> OUR brains while it is the greed and bloodlust of the rulers (to which
> we have damn little control) which causes and facilitates these wars?
> >
Right. It's just "the rulers." Again, see the response to 9/11. It wasn't
just "the rulers" who immediately responded with "let's go to war."
> > >
> > > I don't say this is unexpected nor evil. I simply think a heads up
> > > (just as news shows where you EXPECT to see this stuff do) would
> have
> > > been nice. Not everyone is as hip as you. Some adults may actually
> BE
> > > unaware of what to expect from a Lennon video. But then that's
> their
> > > fault, innit?
> > > >
> >
> > It's their fault if they play it for their young children without
> previewing
> > it. And you know what? EVERYONE buys records, movie, DVDs, etc,
> without
> > getting exactly what they expected. It's no big tragedy.
>
> Again, that is flaccid thinking boyo. No parent alive can preview
> EVERYthing,
Why not? How many videos do you give your children to watch in a week? And
if the video is one of yours, why can't you watch it yourself once, first?
Chocolate Jesus !!
its a song, you moron, not "history".
Chocolate Jesus !!
LOL! oh man, leave the lamer jokes to webby, will ya webby?.....:0)
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
> "The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love" wrote
>
>
> >> living in a nether nether land.
> >
> > John Lennon didn't save any lives. None.
>
>
You can't save lives with big newspaper ads saying war is wrong while laying
in bed. I find it admirable that John went to great lengths to speak out
against the war, but all it did was make for good public relations and some
laughs with the press. He may have changed some politicians attitudes on
war, but the only way to save a life is to not drop a bomb or pull a
trigger. I doubt anyone in Vietnam made any consciencious effort to save a
life because John Lennon said so.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
>Why should anyone be required to make
> something acceptable to show to young children? As far as I know, no one
> recommended showing it to children.
I guess the point that you're completely missing flew over your head about
20 times. I *do not* expect a music video to appeal to children. But I
expect some type of warning on the damn label that says "some content
contains graphic images". *FIVE* words is all they had to print, and they
would have been covered.
My point has never been about censoring the thing- just to let people know
before they shell out $20.00 for the damn video that it contains graphic
images. The picture of John's corpse in the video of "Woman" was also real
classy too.
BlackMonk
> > >
> >
> > > Are you suggesting
> > > > that if he had been alive today, he would
> > > > a) have somehow grown more shy about telling it like it is
> > >
> > > Sure. Why not? No one knows ANYthing about how Lennon would think
> or
> > > be today. Not even Yoko.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that your guesses as to what Lennon would think are
> as
> > valid as Yoko's?
>
> Are you suggesting that the Strait of Gibraltar is actually a
> white-black hole where UFO's eminate from?
>
Wait a minute. How is that in any way similar to say that you consider your
guesses as valid as Yoko's, in response to you saying "why not? No one knows
anything about what John would think or be today. Not even Yoko."
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > b) have changed the message of this partcilar track.
> > >
> > > There's nothing wrong with the message of war being over. It's an
> > > abstract concept. It doesn't NEED visuals to get across. Did you
> > > misunderstand the concept of the song for 30 years because you never
> saw
> > > dead burnt bodies with it? Of course not.
> > >
> >
> > Does Yoko tell you how to do your job?
>
> Try addressing the statements *I* make as opposed to attepting to set up
> your strawman arguments.
What strawman arguments. You were making pronouncements about how Yoko
should do her job.
She thought the video was the best way to get the message of the song
across. Her job.
> >
> > > >
> > > > And anyways, Yoko (of all people) knew what her late husband was
> > > trying
> > > > to say on this track.........that is, better than you or me.
> > >
> > > Better than we, yes. 30 years hence? Shee-it. She knows what John
> > > last thought in Dec. 1980, and that's all.
> >
> > She did co-write the song, and she knows better than anyone what she
> wanted
> > to say. What gives you the right to tell her how to make a video for
> her own
> > song?
>
> I don't care if she cavorts naked with a pentagram on her. I am NOT
> telling Yoko what to do with the video (LAST TIME!). I'm saying the OP
> was certainly within his rights to wonder why there was no warning ON
> THE BOX.
>
> Got it?
>
If that were as far as you went, I'd have no argument with you. You didn't
stop there. You said that Yoko shouldn't have included those images and that
they didn't belong in a video for the song.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
Oh, you mean those widely-distributed films where John was holding his
penis? Yeah, I think Best Buy has those on sale for $14.99. It's under the
"Oscar Winners" category.
Chocolate Jesus !!
>
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
>
> >Why should anyone be required to make
> > something acceptable to show to young children? As far as I know, no one
> > recommended showing it to children.
>
> I guess the point that you're completely missing flew over your head about
> 20 times. I *do not* expect a music video to appeal to children. But I
> expect some type of warning on the damn label
LOL! that's revisionist bullshit.
all along your complaint has been the the vidoe was too "real" and not a
"feel good" piece.
your point has never been about any "warning labels".
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"here is nowhere" <flu...@foodbowl.com> wrote
> Good Xmas?
I should write a song called "Xmas Is Over (If You Want It)". Glad it's
over. It was okay, I guess. Hope you had a good one.
R.A.G. Seely
> I don't care if she cavorts naked with a pentagram on her. I am NOT
> telling Yoko what to do with the video (LAST TIME!). I'm saying the OP
> was certainly within his rights to wonder why there was no warning ON
> THE BOX.
This preoccupation of putting warnings on the box strikes me as a
pecularity of contemporary (American?) life. We've been infected here with
it too, so maybe this is very widespread, but I cannot help thinking that
we take "protecting people" to unnecessarily extraordinary lengths at
times. (I'm convinced that when stations put such disclaimers before
programmes, they're really just hoping they'll attract more viewers! :-))
I haven't seen this video, so my comments are "generic": when my kids were
small, my wife and I virtually always watched TV with them. At first we
did select carefully what they watched, and usually talked about it with
them when that seemed appropriate (or just when we or they felt like it -
even just gossiping about Big Bird or Capt Picard can be a pleasurable
social activity with your kids!). After a while, we became more "liberal"
in what we allowed them to see, and of course, as they started to watch TV
at friends houses, they saw lots of things we didn't have a hand in
selecting. We kept the conversations going, though, and over time managed
to "educate" them to becoming intelligent viewers, able to understand what
they saw, to react to it appropriately and critically, and to weigh what
they saw to understand what the filmmaker had in mind, what his agenda
might be, and to accept or reject what they saw on the basis of their own
views. My point: all this is what I'd consider a parent's minimal
obligation, if they put a TV set and a child together in the same room at
any point.
So, should an inappropriate video about war and its horrors manage to slip
through the net, the "damage" would be negligible, and indeed, the
potential "gain" might be positive. It would at least provide an
excellent, even if unintended, opening for some more conversation. In
fact, we tended to be more liberal about sex, less about violence, but as
indicated, they did see many things elsewhere, and we did have some
conversations about images not unlike those mentioned in this thread. EG:
during the 1st Gulf War. We took the time to explain why we weren't keen
on some films/shows, even if other parents didn't seem to mind, and why
about others the roles were reversed. Such moments are where one's values
might get transmitted to one's young, and I cannot imagine why any parent
would want to miss that opportunity.
Now, none of this addresses whether or not Yoko's video is artistically
sound or whether she has enhanced the effect of the music alone. And on
that I must remain silent, since (as I said) I've not seen the video, nor
am I likely to, as I don't usually buy (or watch) music videos anyway. I
prefer to take my music by ear, not by eye. (We don't even have a decent
sound system attached to the TV - just the two crumbey built in speakers.)
-= rags =-
--
To reply by email, use "@" not "__A@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Danny Caccavo
"The Most Exhaulted Potentate Of Love" <luxin...@cramps.com> wrote:
> "Danny Caccavo" <dcac...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > "Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote:
>
> > > if you cant handle the truth, then dont watch.
>
> > > JL was a huge fan of the truth.
>
>
> > Oh, please, cut out the worship crap.
>
>
> Not only that, but Nick is doing a really lame Jack Nicholson impersonation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
"Lennon Legend"
Title says it all. That's where truth ends.
dc
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
>This isn't moptop
> Beatles. It's not a cartoon. It's solo John Lennon, made during a time
when
> he was definitely making music for adults.
"Ok, class. Now put down your crayons, and let's all sing along to "A Day In
The Life". I want the girls to sing "he blew his mind out in a car", and
then the boys sing "he didn't notice that the lights have changed". "
BlackMonk
>
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:bsnhm0$ef8qu$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love" <lux_in...@cramps.com> wrote
in
> > message news:ovGHb.15926$fq1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > >
> > > No one should have to preview a video by one of The Beatles, Tom. No
> one
> > > ever had to before, why do they have to now-nearly 25 years after
> John's
> > > death?
> >
> > Never? I seem to recall that similar images were included in a film of a
> > Paul McCartney concert. And surely the nude photo of John and Yoko was
> > included in a film or two.
>
> Oh, you mean those widely-distributed films where John was holding his
> penis?
No.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote
> > Yeah. the video blows. Some people just shouldn't mess around with
> history.
> its a song, you moron, not "history".
I feel like Mr. Douglas trying to reason with Mr. Kimball in a Green Acres
rerun. Are you really that stupid?
BlackMonk
What is this "debunking the myth" thing you have about John?
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
> > Oh, you mean those widely-distributed films where John was holding his
> > penis?
>
> No.
Oh, then you mean the unflattering naked "Two Virgins" pic. Well, they're
not dead or covered in blood in the photo, so that's a plus. The naked human
body is less offensive than a dead naked human body. I suppose you're going
to flip a coin now ("should I agree or disagree...")
Chocolate Jesus !!
i think it's tied in to some pretty obvious and widely held biases.
and for the record, john lennon *is* a legendary musician, one who set the
standard for brilliant pop and rock music, some of which was light and
fluffy, and some of which was heavily weighted with issues that concerned
the man.
i guess ultimately some people have trouble accepting that lennon was such a
multi-faceted artist.
and that says more about them than it does about lennon.....:0
Chocolate Jesus !!
>
> "Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote
>
> > > Yeah. the video blows. Some people just shouldn't mess around with
> > history.
>
> > its a song, you moron, not "history".
>
>
funny, you sound like nothing more that a garden variety twit.
go figure........:)
Mister Charlie
>
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:bsn5sh$eat6f$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> >
> > I am commenting on your usual tactics. Call it a flame if you wish,
but
> > coming from you that is a rather amusing designation.
>
> You're lying about my usual tactic.
Thanks for your charitable stance. Nevertheless, you argue just to
argue, and i am not the only one to note it. And your position here is
*especially* tenuous (what would anyone have to object about a box label
for parents?????), so you drivel on the more.
Just like you always do.
'Always'. Why, you liar. :)
You can't stick
> to an issue, because the positions you take usually are indefensible,
so you
> try to attack me.
OMG....you HAD to be looking in a mirror when you typed this, you just
HAD to be!!!
>
> >
> > >
> > > Inappropriate because they deal solely with the person's desires
of
> > what the
> > > song should be.
> >
> > And why would someone generally unfamiliar with John's video work be
> > considered inappropiate for not expecting dead bodies on a Xmas
song?
> > >
>
> You said it yourself. The person is unfamiliar with John's work, so
having
> any expectations is unrealistic.
You are the one who introduced 'expectations' into your polemic. I have
no idea what the OP expected nor would I try to speculate.
> >
> > How young are we talking here? Teenagers are certainly children.
>
> All of them? 18-year olds, too?
More Tom hair-splitting. Think you won a point here? (You'd be wrong to
say yes.)
>
> "Young children" are pre-teens. A thirteen year old is certainly old
enough
> to see the news.
Again, the news is a red herring. Not the issue.
>
> > Perhaps the OP needs to define how old his kids are and we'd have a
good
> > idea of what the issue is here. Nevertheless, kids of ALL ages
embraced
> > the Beatles, even in the 60's. Therefore, not a valid argument.
> > >
>
> They "embraced" The Beatles. I said the work wasn't made for them.
Aside
> from the song "Yellow Submarine" nothing the Beatles did was made for
young
> children.
So what? Almost everything the Beatles did was family-friendly.
>
> > > >
> > > When did I say STINYC is one of my favorite albums. I simply said
I
> > > preferred it to one specific mediocre McCartney album.
> >
> > So now you backtrack?
>
> No, I never said it was one of my favorite albums. If you claim I did,
> you're either imagining things or a liar. Which is it?
Pathetic, Tom, truly pathetic. How many more times will you have your
ass handed back to you before you learn to just shut up?
>
>
Mister Charlie
>
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:bsn6fj$cvvuu$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >
> > packaging?
> >
>
> I wasn't referring to that.
God only knows WHAT you refrer to, as you introduce your own little
themes into these discussions then argue them incessantly. My only
original point was (and even then I said PERHAPS it might be a worthy
idea) was about a warning. Frankly I don't much like that idea either
but I don't know how else one could avoid the kind of problems the OP
had unless they simply quit making Xmas videos with death on them.
It's unrealistic to say they shouldn't have made
> the video based on the expectations of people unfamilair with them.
True. So? Selling them is a different matter.
>
> > Now, how unrealistic is it to expect every parent in the world to be
> > fully aware of what Yoko decides to put on her dead husband's music?
>
> No one said they had to be fully aware of it, but they should be fully
aware
> of what happens in a video before they give it to their children,
especially
> if the video is of music that WASN'T made for children.
And if they all sat down to watch it together?
You never answered about your own parental status, so correct me if I'm
wrong, but I'm wageruing you ain't got a kid or more and you have NO
idea what parents already go thru on a daily basis.
This isn't moptop
> Beatles. It's not a cartoon. It's solo John Lennon, made during a time
when
> he was definitely making music for adults.
Says you.
>
> > > That's a great idea. Compartmentalize anything unpleasant about
war,
> > so we
> > > can all assume that war doesn't really touch us.
> >
> > As opposed to splashing ox blood over anyone who walks by so they
won't
> > forget war is bad? Incredibly facile argument here, Tom. No one is
> > unaware war is nasty, not even young children.
> >
>
> Some people need reminders.
Some people need to learn to argue honestly as well but there ya go.
Proper time, proper place. My original words still stand.
>
> > >
> > > > SO what exactly do you expect to happen to those who watch this?
> > > > (Adults, I mean.)
> > > >
> > > > You think war will end tomorrow by popular fiat because of
Yoko's
> > brave
> > > > stance? Horseshit.
> > >
> > > No one said anything about "tomorrow."
> >
> > Thirty years hence? Their 'war is over' campaign hasn't done
anything
> > YET. How long should we wait?
>
> As long as it takes. We're talking about changing an attitude that has
been
> ingrained in the entire world for millenia. It's pretty selfish to
think "we
> can't stop war in my lifetime, so it isn't worth doing."
Of course not, I certainly never indicated otherwise. Please explain to
me exactly how a Xmas video by a hugely popular 60's star is going to
end a single war with inappropriate (IMO) images of real death?
>
> And as for not having done "anything" yet. I'd say that you're wrong.
It
> hasn't stopped war, but there's more questioning of military action
than
> there was 50 years ago.
Sure there is. People marching every day. Here you betray your youth
and your hyperbole.
>> > > It's their fault if they play it for their young children without
> > previewing
> > > it. And you know what? EVERYONE buys records, movie, DVDs, etc,
> > without
> > > getting exactly what they expected. It's no big tragedy.
> >
> > Again, that is flaccid thinking boyo. No parent alive can preview
> > EVERYthing,
>
> Why not? How many videos do you give your children to watch in a week?
And
> if the video is one of yours, why can't you watch it yourself once,
first?
We don't know the OP's situation. Perhaps he/she WAS naive. Perhaps
they were pressed for time. I am not going to speculate. Unlike you.
>
>
Mister Charlie
>
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> news:bsn6o8$ejib0$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > > >
think
> > or
> > > > be today. Not even Yoko.
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting that your guesses as to what Lennon would think
are
> > as
> > > valid as Yoko's?
> >
> > Are you suggesting that the Strait of Gibraltar is actually a
> > white-black hole where UFO's eminate from?
> >
>
> Wait a minute. How is that in any way similar to say that you consider
your
> guesses as valid as Yoko's, in response to you saying "why not? No one
knows
> anything about what John would think or be today. Not even Yoko."
It's as valid because again you set up an unrelated and unclaimed
situation and then answer for me. Because NO ONE (includes Yoko now,
follow along) has a clue where John Lennon would have been today had he
lived. NO ONE.
Now how exactly does this escape your steel-trap mind?
> > > > There's nothing wrong with the message of war being over. It's
an
> > > > abstract concept. It doesn't NEED visuals to get across. Did
you
> > > > misunderstand the concept of the song for 30 years because you
never
> > saw
> > > > dead burnt bodies with it? Of course not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does Yoko tell you how to do your job?
She has no job. (then again.....)
> >
> > Try addressing the statements *I* make as opposed to attepting to
set up
> > your strawman arguments.
>
> What strawman arguments. You were making pronouncements about how Yoko
> should do her job.
There you go again, lying to set up your own rightness. I said nothing
of the sort. Go back and read again if you can't comprehend English.
Read it as many times as you need. Go ahead, we'll wait.
>
> She thought the video was the best way to get the message of the song
> across. Her job.
And I disagree with her assessment. SO what? My right, my opinion.
It's a cheap and overdone effect, contrasting the message with the
visual. YAWN. Oh well.
This whole argument you have constructed (for God knows what reason) is
useless (like most of them). MY *opinion* is the OP had a valid point,
and I found it odd that anyone would have criticized them for it.
People who have no kids, I might add, to the best of my limited
knowledge. Critics are not above critique.
> >
> > I don't care if she cavorts naked with a pentagram on her. I am NOT
> > telling Yoko what to do with the video (LAST TIME!). I'm saying the
OP
> > was certainly within his rights to wonder why there was no warning
ON
> > THE BOX.
> >
> > Got it?
> >
>
> If that were as far as you went, I'd have no argument with you.
Then we have no argument. Sweet.
You didn't
> stop there. You said that Yoko shouldn't have included those images
and that
> they didn't belong in a video for the song.
Yup. Wow. What a concept.
>
>
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote
> i guess ultimately some people have trouble accepting that lennon was such
a
> multi-faceted artist.
Yeah, he was multi-faceted alright. He made some real shit albums with Yoko
and some brilliant ones when her voice wasn't on them.
> and that says more about them than it does about lennon.....:0
John was a brilliant musician, but he was human. He could create some truly
awful music with the best of them.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote
> funny, you sound like nothing more that a garden variety twit.
I don't have a garden.
Chocolate Jesus !!
>
> "Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote
>
> > i guess ultimately some people have trouble accepting that lennon was
such
> a
> > multi-faceted artist.
>
> Yeah, he was multi-faceted alright. He made some real shit albums with
Yoko
> and some brilliant ones when her voice wasn't on them.
ah, the yoko bashing twit strikes again.
so he created some pretty shite songs with the beatles too, but i dont see
you ragging on them like you do on yoko.
>
> > and that says more about them than it does about lennon.....:0
>
> John was a brilliant musician, but he was human. He could create some
truly
> awful music with the best of them.
wow, what a relevation.
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"Chocolate Jesus !!" <cho...@jesus.net> wrote
> ah, the yoko bashing twit strikes again.
>
> so he created some pretty shite songs with the beatles too, but i dont see
> you ragging on them like you do on yoko.
"John"
"Yoko"
"John"
"Yoko"
"John?"
"Yoko?"
"JOHN!"
"YOKO!"
Brilliant stuff.
BlackMonk
I'm not offended by either. However, you were talking about things that were
acceptable for young children to view. Many people would think the Two
Virgins picture isn't acceptable.
BlackMonk
>
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:bsniph$elih9$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
> > news:bsn6o8$ejib0$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure. Why not? No one knows ANYthing about how Lennon would
> think
> > > or
> > > > > be today. Not even Yoko.
> > > >
> > > > Are you suggesting that your guesses as to what Lennon would think
> are
> > > as
> > > > valid as Yoko's?
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting that the Strait of Gibraltar is actually a
> > > white-black hole where UFO's eminate from?
> > >
> >
> > Wait a minute. How is that in any way similar to say that you consider
> your
> > guesses as valid as Yoko's, in response to you saying "why not? No one
> knows
> > anything about what John would think or be today. Not even Yoko."
>
> It's as valid because again you set up an unrelated and unclaimed
> situation and then answer for me. Because NO ONE (includes Yoko now,
> follow along) has a clue where John Lennon would have been today had he
> lived. NO ONE.
>
Then if you have a disease that NO ONE knows how to treat, you wouldn't mind
going to a plumber instead of a doctor?
The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
> > It's as valid because again you set up an unrelated and unclaimed
> > situation and then answer for me. Because NO ONE (includes Yoko now,
> > follow along) has a clue where John Lennon would have been today had he
> > lived. NO ONE.
> Then if you have a disease that NO ONE knows how to treat, you wouldn't
mind
> going to a plumber instead of a doctor?
I read this response five times. It flew over my head faster than a Brett
Favre pass.
Danny Caccavo
"The Most Exhaulted Potentate of Love" <lux_in...@cramps.com>
wrote:
My point about the "legend" comment was that there has been so much
"spin" and legend-making over the years that it's sometimes hard to
separate fact from assumption or fact from fiction. John was an amazing
musician. With The Beatles, he changed the face of music forever. But
to put him up on a pedestal as a human being is ridiculous. And I feel
that to "reinterpret" his songs with new videos is, well - legend-making
- because it's someone else's idea of what John really meant. Only John
knew what he meant - and even then, sometimes not! <g>. I'm not willing
to accept everything as fact that Yoko presents merely because "John
loved her." I'm not going to automatically *disbelieve* it either - but
many people are going to accept everything Yoko presents as fact.
Which I suppose could "Lennon Legend" an appropriate title. We don't
know if John would have approved of the Xmas video or not. To me, it's
best that his songs speak for themselves, instead of letting others -
even Yoko - speaking for them, or him.
dc
Danny Caccavo
Ehtue <eh...@aa.com> wrote:
> Johnny Dupe writes:
>
> >> John, this song has always been about war.
> >>
> >> It has never been about children singing in Sunday school.
> >
> >
> > Well, I always knew that, but it was an ironic statement about the
> > Vietnam war, and we all know what happened there. Having a video made
> > to show more innocent lives killed in an entirely different war may be
> > rather "artsy" and clever pointing out how things haven't changed
> > much, but i'd rather not see the stock news footage of more human
> > suffering yet again.
> >
> > We got the message the first time.
>
> The message is worth repeating, imo. It's a way of showing that the song
> and sentiment are timeless. It's a powerful piece... as is the song.
> Stewball or not ;-)
>
> -Ehtue
Yes, but how should that message be conveyed? We all have our own
distinct impression of the song - but in this video age, it has now been
indelibly stamped with a new interpretation - a literal one, not open to
interpretation. To me, that's the problem with a lot of videos -
sometimes they only allow a strict interpretation of the song that the
images accompany.
dc
Danny Caccavo
Ehtue <eh...@aa.com> wrote:
> > shock for the sheer sake of shock is rather dumb. yoko's behavior is
> > almost saying, "well, innocent people died horrible deaths in vietnam,
> > but let's update the video and feature some new dead bodies".
>
> It's not shock for shock's sake. It's to bring home a reality of war.
But what about the message of hope? Do you feel that that message is
somehow diluted with this new video? To me, it's been replaced.
And to me, "hope" was the strongest message of the song.
dc
Danny Caccavo
"Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote:
> Some adults may actually BE
> unaware of what to expect from a Lennon video
But that's part of the problem. It's not a Lennon video.
dc