For McCartney, Lennon's death as painful as ever
jen
By Paul Majendie
HAY-ON-WYE (Reuters) - Paul McCartney misses John Lennon as deeply as
ever -- but now he has finally shaken off the critics who always said Lennon
was the cutting edge of the Beatles.
"I know I will never get over it and hope I will never get over it," he said
of the death of his legendary collaborator, gunned down outside his New York
apartment building by a crazed fan in 1980.
But at the age of 58, McCartney is much more at ease with the Beatles
legacy, dismissing critics who said Lennon was the rock 'n'roll linchpin of
the world's most famous pop group while the doe-eyed McCartney wrote the
sugary love songs.
"It doesn't worry me now. I know it's not true. John knew it wasn't true.
George and Ringo know it's not true," he told Reuters in an interview at
Britain's leading literary festival in the Welsh border town of Hay-on-Wye
where he came to read his poems and pay tribute to Lennon.
"I feel very much more at ease with it now. There were revisionists. I
actually read quotes where people were saying 'Paul just booked the studio.'
Of course I became a little bit insecure thinking -- God, what if this sort
of thing catches on."
"Since John died, the natural thing -- and it is exactly what he didn't want
to happen -- is that he has become a bit of a martyr. You cannot help it."
EVERY MEETING BROUGHT A SONG
Reflecting on the magic they created so effortlessly, McCartney said:
"John and I sat down on 295 occasions. On every occasion we sat down, we
only spent about three hours and we never ever came out without a song. It
is very lucky but we were good and it was a passion. We loved doing it and
it sure beat working.
"John was fantastic, a genius. I was privileged to work with him and the
fact that we worked together for so long shows how much he appreciated
working with me. He could have swopped me at any given point."
At his poetry reading, McCartney condemned Lennon's killer Mark Chapman as
"the jerk of all jerks" and spoke movingly of how they had made up their
differences after the acrimonious splitup of the Beatles -- and before he
died.
McCartney is now particularly delighted that the compilation of greatest
hits from Wings -- the group he set up with his late wife Linda after the
Beatles split -- has sold one million copies in the United States.
He feels that Linda, who died of breast cancer in 1998, has been vindicated
after a barrage of music critics said she should never have been in the
band.
"I think she was really good," he said. "She would never have said she was
the world's greatest musician."
Tragedy has always stalked McCartney -- his mother died when he was 14, then
came Lennon's killing and Linda's long but vain fight against cancer.
"It is a painful thing, there is no doubt about that," he concluded. "That's
the nature of life unfortunately. It is the name of the game."
Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited.
Jeff Mills
> HAY-ON-WYE (Reuters) - Paul McCartney misses John Lennon as deeply as
> ever -- but now he has finally shaken off the critics who always said
Lennon
> was the cutting edge of the Beatles.
I'm sure he misses John, but he hasn't shaken off the critics nor will he
ever.
> "I know I will never get over it and hope I will never get over it," he
said
> of the death of his legendary collaborator, gunned down outside his New
York
> apartment building by a crazed fan in 1980.
Understood, Paul, but why must he keep bringing this up? You know, he
wants people to see him for who he is and not as the "PR man", but this
behavior only reinforces that.
> But at the age of 58, McCartney is much more at ease with the Beatles
> legacy, dismissing critics who said Lennon was the rock 'n'roll linchpin
of
> the world's most famous pop group while the doe-eyed McCartney wrote the
> sugary love songs.
If one were to base it on singles? Yes. Whether Paul likes it or not,
his most successful songs as a Beatle, as a Wing, as a solo artist have been
ballads. That is not to say he can't rock or that all he can do is ballads.
If you ask me, I think it's a pretty damn nice thing to be able to have that
gift that allows you to be the most successful songwriter. It's just very
hard to feel sorry for a guy who has beautiful children, millions of
dollars, an amazing gift for writing songs and performing music, and we're
supposed to feel sorry for poor Paul? Let me be Paul McCartney for a day
any day!
> "It doesn't worry me now. I know it's not true. John knew it wasn't true.
> George and Ringo know it's not true," he told Reuters in an interview at
> Britain's leading literary festival in the Welsh border town of Hay-on-Wye
> where he came to read his poems and pay tribute to Lennon.
If it's not true, then why keep bringing it up?
> "I feel very much more at ease with it now. There were revisionists.
Who's being the revisionist here?
I
> actually read quotes where people were saying 'Paul just booked the
studio.'
> Of course I became a little bit insecure thinking -- God, what if this
sort
> of thing catches on."
I have NEVER read any quote stating the sort. I know in my heart that
Paul is much better than this. Maybe one day Paul will come to grips with
the reality that both he and John were amazingly gifted, but two very
different people. And in the end, the only thing that matters is the music.
Because one hundred years from now, thousands of years from now, nobody will
care who was better looking, who was more on the "cutting edge", etc.
They'll be saying how great the music is. Which is all that matters in the
end.
> "Since John died, the natural thing -- and it is exactly what he didn't
want
> to happen -- is that he has become a bit of a martyr. You cannot help it."
John could be a real asshole at times, but he was fair. He could really
slag Paul off many times, but he was honest enough to credit him where
credit was due. And I think much of it has to do with ego and self-esteem.
Yoko gave John a lot of security and though John did envy Paul and resented
a lot of the accolades heaped on Paul, we must remember...John was jealous
of Paul, but John accepted it. He said once on Tom Snyder's old show that
he knew since he was a teenager that Paul was the most popular one. That
was the way it was. Paul was the best looking one. And when John was still
alive, he once told a story of how he would go to restauraunts and musicians
would be playing "Yesterday" and he'd say, "I guess they can't play 'I Am
The Walrus' can they?"
> EVERY MEETING BROUGHT A SONG
>
> Reflecting on the magic they created so effortlessly, McCartney said:
>
> "John and I sat down on 295 occasions. On every occasion we sat down, we
> only spent about three hours and we never ever came out without a song. It
> is very lucky but we were good and it was a passion. We loved doing it and
> it sure beat working.
How can Paul remember this so vividly when he can't even remember that he
did "Here, There and Everywhere" in 1966? He often tells this story where
John said that that song was much better than any of his in 1965 during the
filming of "Help!" And nobody ever challenges him or calls him on it. It's
not being rude, but it's just the truth.
Unless he's talking about a demo for the song.
> "John was fantastic, a genius. I was privileged to work with him and the
> fact that we worked together for so long shows how much he appreciated
> working with me. He could have swopped me at any given point."
He did, in 1968.
> At his poetry reading, McCartney condemned Lennon's killer Mark Chapman as
> "the jerk of all jerks" and spoke movingly of how they had made up their
> differences after the acrimonious splitup of the Beatles -- and before he
> died.
I'm not sure that they ever really cleared up everything, but I do think
that had John lived that Paul and John would have became close again. I
think both would have ended up doing a duet together on one's solo album.
They were truly the "odd couple." Forget Felix and Oscar. It was John and
Paul. Both couldn't stand each other at times, but they both loved each
other.
> McCartney is now particularly delighted that the compilation of greatest
> hits from Wings -- the group he set up with his late wife Linda after the
> Beatles split -- has sold one million copies in the United States.
>
> He feels that Linda, who died of breast cancer in 1998, has been
vindicated
> after a barrage of music critics said she should never have been in the
> band.
All kidding aside, I never thought I'd say this, but I really miss Linda
and I never knew how much of an impact she had on people until I saw
"Wingspan." So in that respect, that is what I liked about "Wingspan." I
know this sounds funny, but I think that Linda was to Paul what Yoko was to
John, and both brought out the best in each other. I think that if Linda
was alive, Paul would not be behaving as he has recently with all this
revisionist crap.
> "I think she was really good," he said. "She would never have said she was
> the world's greatest musician."
She was okay, but I think she would be more proud for people to remember
her as a great mum. And wife.
> Tragedy has always stalked McCartney -- his mother died when he was 14,
then
> came Lennon's killing and Linda's long but vain fight against cancer.
Tragedy has been a hallmark of the Beatles. Brian Epstein died young.
Mal died young. Stuart, of course.
> "It is a painful thing, there is no doubt about that," he concluded.
"That's
> the nature of life unfortunately. It is the name of the game."
Yes, but life goes on. Bra.
> Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited.
>
>
paramucho
wrote:
>"John and I sat down on 295 occasions. On every occasion we sat down, we
>only spent about three hours and we never ever came out without a song. It
>is very lucky but we were good and it was a passion. We loved doing it and
>it sure beat working.
Huh?
295? Paul seems to be referring to *all* the songs copyrighted by
Lennon/McCartney, but I would have thought that the majority of those
songs were substantially written separately. I'd take 100 or 200 off
that number, for songs written in three hour sit-down writing
sessions.
Ian
D 28IF
> I
>> actually read quotes where people were saying 'Paul just booked the
>studio.'
>> Of course I became a little bit insecure thinking -- God, what if this
>sort
>> of thing catches on."
>
> I have NEVER read any quote stating the sort. I know in my heart that
>Paul is much better than this. Maybe one day Paul will come to grips with
>the reality that both he and John were amazingly gifted, but two very
>different people. And in the end, the only thing that matters is the music.
I believe the statement about Paul only booking the studios came from Yoko.
Face it, he's as insecure in his way as John was in his.
J. Juls
paramucho <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
news:3b1693a...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Huh?
>
> 295? Paul seems to be referring to *all* the songs copyrighted by
> Lennon/McCartney, but I would have thought that the majority of those
> songs were substantially written separately. I'd take 100 or 200 off
> that number, for songs written in three hour sit-down writing
> sessions.
>
>
> Ian
>
What's that old joke? It's not amazing that they sat down to write "295"
times, but it's amazing that anyone was keeping count! (;
Julie
Mister Charlie
"Jeff Mills" <jm1...@home.com> wrote in message
news:eHfR6.88774$I5.21...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>
>
> If one were to base it on singles? Yes. Whether Paul likes it or not,
> his most successful songs as a Beatle, as a Wing, as a solo artist have
been
> ballads. That is not to say he can't rock or that all he can do is
ballads.
> If you ask me, I think it's a pretty damn nice thing to be able to have
that
> gift that allows you to be the most successful songwriter. It's just very
> hard to feel sorry for a guy who has beautiful children, millions of
> dollars, an amazing gift for writing songs and performing music, and we're
> supposed to feel sorry for poor Paul? Let me be Paul McCartney for a day
> any day!
good points
The thing is that Paul went on the defensive the very day John was shot.
Within days he was saying this same thing, that Paul was as good as John. I
NEVER understood where this paranoia comes from, since everyone I know
regarded them both as equals in the band and since he was the cute one most
girls liked him best. In the late eighties when he went on tour he was
still saying the exact same thing. If ANYone is reinforcing the stereotype
of John being hipper or heavier or whatever, it's HIM. If he won't talk
about it we won't.
paramucho
<cc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Because one hundred years from now, thousands of years from now, nobody
>will
>> care who was better looking, who was more on the "cutting edge", etc.
>> They'll be saying how great the music is. Which is all that matters in
>the
>> end.
>
>The thing is that Paul went on the defensive the very day John was shot.
>Within days he was saying this same thing, that Paul was as good as John. I
>NEVER understood where this paranoia comes from, since everyone I know
>regarded them both as equals in the band and since he was the cute one most
>girls liked him best. In the late eighties when he went on tour he was
>still saying the exact same thing. If ANYone is reinforcing the stereotype
>of John being hipper or heavier or whatever, it's HIM. If he won't talk
>about it we won't.
It's not that simple. If you were in Paul's position, you would start
thinking about how history will treat you. History, the moving finger
of time, is a cruel mistress, sterile, fickle and lacking any sense of
remorse. History has packed many Heroes Of The Day up in cartons and
shipped them down into the basement to gather dust.
Who remembers Rossini or Mendlesohn? Both gods in their day. On the
other hand, history picks up unknowns like Bach, even if the process
takes hundreds of years. This is sheer hell for control freaks.
Paul seems to be interested in how he and the Beatles will be
portrayed. He cooperates with many authors on a broad range of topics
(Yesterday, the films, etc etc). His wish to have "Yesterday" as a
"McCartney/Lennon" copyright may indicate that he wants to make sure
that his "best" song is clearly remembered as his.
He does *appear* to have a chip on his shoulder regarding Lennon.
However, it's very difficult to work out where that all comes from --
to do that one needs to understand Paul, and that's a big ask because
he doesn't let much out of the bag regarding himself.
On the other hand, most of what he does will have no impact on the
history at all. Either he doesn't really understand how history
functions, or he's done other stuff in private for later or posthumous
release, or he doesn't really care after all.
Ian
Mister Charlie
precisely. because in the end, his legacy is the music, primarily Beatles
but also post Paul. The rest is stuff for us contemporaries to play with
but in the end will have no meaning.
>
STEPHE96
McCartney has a point. If, say, Paul had been "martyred" instead of John, then
we'd all have witnessed John's post-1980 music deteriorate and decline in
quality, and ALL we'd have of Paul's to remember him would be his Beatles and
'70s classics. I think what some cynic said about Elvis's death would probably
apply also to John's murder in 1980: "Good career move."
As for Paul? "Methinks he doth protest too much..."
TheMutant
there as unlimited futures in store for the universe, and Paul is treated
kindly in all of them, as he should be.
Johnny Dupe
>I have seen the future, or at least a few futures, as
> there as unlimited futures in store for the universe, and
That would explain why your brain is not functioning at the optimum
level.
Well, you're on Level 3. 'nuff said.
--
-John W.
http://jwebsongs.homestead.com/index.html
Don't just hate me for my posts, hate me for my music too!
TheMutant
Johnny Dupe <du...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:3B15C9...@noreply.com...
> TheMutant wrote:
>
>
> >I have seen the future, or at least a few futures, as
> > there as unlimited futures in store for the universe, and
>
> That would explain why your brain is not functioning at the optimum
> level.
No Johnny, you're wrong. my brain is at least fifty times as efficient as
the average humans now.
You strike me as well below average, so it's probably higher in your case.
>
> Well, you're on Level 3. 'nuff said.
"Nuff said"? Isn't that something that teenaged girls say a lot?
Yeah, it is. OK JoanieDupe.
Johnny Dupe
> "Nuff said"? Isn't that something that teenaged girls say a lot?
Teenaged girls?
Hmm.. what brought this up, Marek?
LOL!! I really don't want to know.
Sounds like you're sexually frustrated. Is Beth having her daily period?
TheMutant
> TheMutant wrote:
>
> > "Nuff said"? Isn't that something that teenaged girls say a lot?
>
> Teenaged girls?
Like you.
>
> Hmm.. what brought this up, Marek?
I don't know, Marek, why are you writing like a teenaged girl?
>
> LOL!! I really don't want to know.
I doubt you want to know much, Joanie Dupe.
>
> Sounds like you're sexually frustrated. Is Beth having her daily period?
Wow, you're a sick person, aren't you? Who is this Beth? A fantasy teen girl
you want to be?
Johnny Dupe
> Who is this Beth?
Your wife.
Soon to be ex-wife when she gets the Fed Ex package.
LOL!!
TheMutant
> TheMutant wrote:
>
>
> > Who is this Beth?
>
> Your wife.
I'm not married, but thanks for the thought.
>
> Soon to be ex-wife when she gets the Fed Ex package.
Huh?
>
> LOL!!
I wonder how many killfiles you made tonight, Joanie, LOL!
Johnny Dupe
> I'm not married, but thanks for the thought.
Have you tried the new Wendy's "surf burger".
It has freakin' MINNOWS on it- about 12 of 'em.
Damn tasty. I think they're perch.
TheMutant
> TheMutant wrote:
>
> > I'm not married, but thanks for the thought.
>
>
> Have you tried the new Wendy's "surf burger".
Not a big Wendy's person. Giving up on Micky D's though, after what they
did to the Hindus. Just doesn't seem right to me. I do like a good burger
though. Lots of cheese and onions in the back of my mind.
>
> It has freakin' MINNOWS on it- about 12 of 'em.
I like anchovies.
>
> Damn tasty. I think they're perch.
Maybe I'll give them a try.
Rynosseros Blue
rec.music.beatles, said:
>TheMutant wrote:
>
>> I'm not married, but thanks for the thought.
>
>
>Have you tried the new Wendy's "surf burger".
>
>It has freakin' MINNOWS on it- about 12 of 'em.
>
>Damn tasty. I think they're perch.
Why, have they got a Norwegian Blue nailed to them?
--
Rynosseros: 'orny, ornery critter.
Davisk
"TheMutant" <Muta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f4htb$28etk$1...@ID-69012.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Johnny Dupe <du...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> news:3B15C9...@noreply.com...
> > TheMutant wrote:
> >
> >
> > >I have seen the future, or at least a few futures, as
> > > there as unlimited futures in store for the universe, and
> >
> > That would explain why your brain is not functioning at the optimum
> > level.
>
> No Johnny, you're wrong. my brain is at least fifty times as efficient as
> the average humans now.
>
Get over yourself, you egomaniac
> You strike me as well below average, so it's probably higher in your case.
How about in terms of social skills? I'd say John rates above average,
whereas you have none whatsoever.
> >
> > Well, you're on Level 3. 'nuff said.
>
> "Nuff said"? Isn't that something that teenaged girls say a lot?
>
You oughta know...
Davisk
>
> Johnny Dupe <du...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> news:3B15D5...@noreply.com...
> > TheMutant wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Who is this Beth?
> >
> > Your wife.
>
> I'm not married, but thanks for the thought.
I could have said that.
> >
> > Soon to be ex-wife when she gets the Fed Ex package.
>
> Huh?
> >
> > LOL!!
>
> I wonder how many killfiles you made tonight, Johnie, LOL!
>
None.
Mister Charlie
"Rynosseros Blue" <Ry...@nomail.thankee.com> wrote in message
news:gpqbht8e42c8jv8od...@4ax.com...
TheMutant
> >
> >> I'm not married, but thanks for the thought.
> >
> >
> >Have you tried the new Wendy's "surf burger".
> >
> >It has freakin' MINNOWS on it- about 12 of 'em.
> >
> >Damn tasty. I think they're perch.
>
> Why, have they got a Norwegian Blue nailed to them?
>
Pining for the fiords.
TheMutant
Davisk <davi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:z_pR6.55314$GE6.66...@news2.tor.primus.ca...
> > >
> > >
> > > >I have seen the future, or at least a few futures, as
> > > > there as unlimited futures in store for the universe, and
> > >
> > > That would explain why your brain is not functioning at the optimum
> > > level.
> >
> > No Johnny, you're wrong. my brain is at least fifty times as efficient
as
> > the average humans now.
> >
>
> Get over yourself, you egomaniac
It's not ego. I wasn't born this way. They changed me, altered me.
>
> > You strike me as well below average, so it's probably higher in your
case.
>
> How about in terms of social skills? I'd say John rates above average,
> whereas you have none whatsoever.
>
I disagree. On both counts. Unless you consider Joanie Dupe calling people
assholes "social skill". LOL
> > >
> > > Well, you're on Level 3. 'nuff said.
> >
> > "Nuff said"? Isn't that something that teenaged girls say a lot?
> >
>
> You oughta know...
I thought everyone knew.
>
>
TheMutant
> > >
> > > > Who is this Beth?
> > >
> > > Your wife.
> >
> > I'm not married, but thanks for the thought.
>
> I could have said that.
>
> > >
> > > Soon to be ex-wife when she gets the Fed Ex package.
> >
> > Huh?
> > >
> > > LOL!!
> >
> > I wonder how many killfiles you made tonight, Johnie, LOL!
> >
>
> None.
I'm betting quite a few. Most people don't want to read his bile.
>
>
Davisk
>
> Davisk <davi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:z_pR6.55314$GE6.66...@news2.tor.primus.ca...
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >I have seen the future, or at least a few futures, as
> > > > > there as unlimited futures in store for the universe, and
> > > >
> > > > That would explain why your brain is not functioning at the optimum
> > > > level.
> > >
> > > No Johnny, you're wrong. my brain is at least fifty times as efficient
> as
> > > the average humans now.
> > >
> >
> > Get over yourself, you egomaniac
>
> It's not ego. I wasn't born this way. They changed me, altered me.
Who is 'they'? Nick? Trisha? Will?
Rich Forman
Beatles
>> legacy, dismissing critics who said Lennon was the rock 'n'roll
linchpin
>> of the world's most famous pop group while the doe-eyed McCartney
wrote the
>> sugary love songs.
>
> If one were to base it on singles?
Why would one do that?
> Yes. Whether Paul likes it or not,
> his most successful songs as a Beatle, as a Wing, as a solo artist have been
> ballads.
Yes, including such tender, saccharin, wispy, wimpy numbers as I Saw
Her Standing There, Can't Buy Me Love, Lady Madonna, Back in the USSR,
Get Back,
Band on the Run, Jet, Junior's Farm, Getting Closer, and The World
Tonight.
richforman
TheMutant
>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >I have seen the future, or at least a few futures, as
> > > > > > there as unlimited futures in store for the universe, and
> > > > >
> > > > > That would explain why your brain is not functioning at the
optimum
> > > > > level.
> > > >
> > > > No Johnny, you're wrong. my brain is at least fifty times as
efficient
> > as
> > > > the average humans now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Get over yourself, you egomaniac
> >
> > It's not ego. I wasn't born this way. They changed me, altered me.
>
> Who is 'they'? Nick? Trisha? Will?
'They' are the Vegans. I know who Nick is, and I think I know who Will is,
but who is Trisha?
>
>
Johnny Dupe
>who is Trisha?
He's charmander. DUH!
AppleCorp3
>we'd all have witnessed John's post-1980 music deteriorate and decline in
>quality,
Not just that, but now were left with "what he could have released would have
been great..."
Same thing could have happend if Paul had been the one.
Derek J. Larsson
...... Exactly.......
Jeff Mills wrote:
> > HAY-ON-WYE (Reuters) - Paul McCartney misses John Lennon as deeply as
> > ever -- but now he has finally shaken off the critics who always said
> Lennon
> > was the cutting edge of the Beatles.
>
> I'm sure he misses John, but he hasn't shaken off the critics nor will he
> ever.
>
> > "I know I will never get over it and hope I will never get over it," he
> said
> > of the death of his legendary collaborator, gunned down outside his New
> York
> > apartment building by a crazed fan in 1980.
>
> Understood, Paul, but why must he keep bringing this up? You know, he
> wants people to see him for who he is and not as the "PR man", but this
> behavior only reinforces that.
>
> > But at the age of 58, McCartney is much more at ease with the Beatles
> > legacy, dismissing critics who said Lennon was the rock 'n'roll linchpin
> of
> > the world's most famous pop group while the doe-eyed McCartney wrote the
> > sugary love songs.
>
> If one were to base it on singles? Yes. Whether Paul likes it or not,
> his most successful songs as a Beatle, as a Wing, as a solo artist have been
> ballads. That is not to say he can't rock or that all he can do is ballads.
> If you ask me, I think it's a pretty damn nice thing to be able to have that
> gift that allows you to be the most successful songwriter. It's just very
> hard to feel sorry for a guy who has beautiful children, millions of
> dollars, an amazing gift for writing songs and performing music, and we're
> supposed to feel sorry for poor Paul? Let me be Paul McCartney for a day
> any day!
>
> > "It doesn't worry me now. I know it's not true. John knew it wasn't true.
> > George and Ringo know it's not true," he told Reuters in an interview at
> > Britain's leading literary festival in the Welsh border town of Hay-on-Wye
> > where he came to read his poems and pay tribute to Lennon.
>
> If it's not true, then why keep bringing it up?
>
> > "I feel very much more at ease with it now. There were revisionists.
>
> Who's being the revisionist here?
>
> I
> > actually read quotes where people were saying 'Paul just booked the
> studio.'
> > Of course I became a little bit insecure thinking -- God, what if this
> sort
> > of thing catches on."
>
> I have NEVER read any quote stating the sort. I know in my heart that
> Paul is much better than this. Maybe one day Paul will come to grips with
> the reality that both he and John were amazingly gifted, but two very
> different people. And in the end, the only thing that matters is the music.
> Because one hundred years from now, thousands of years from now, nobody will
> care who was better looking, who was more on the "cutting edge", etc.
> They'll be saying how great the music is. Which is all that matters in the
> end.
>
> > "Since John died, the natural thing -- and it is exactly what he didn't
> want
> > to happen -- is that he has become a bit of a martyr. You cannot help it."
>
> John could be a real asshole at times, but he was fair. He could really
> slag Paul off many times, but he was honest enough to credit him where
> credit was due. And I think much of it has to do with ego and self-esteem.
> Yoko gave John a lot of security and though John did envy Paul and resented
> a lot of the accolades heaped on Paul, we must remember...John was jealous
> of Paul, but John accepted it. He said once on Tom Snyder's old show that
> he knew since he was a teenager that Paul was the most popular one. That
> was the way it was. Paul was the best looking one. And when John was still
> alive, he once told a story of how he would go to restauraunts and musicians
> would be playing "Yesterday" and he'd say, "I guess they can't play 'I Am
> The Walrus' can they?"
>
> > EVERY MEETING BROUGHT A SONG
> >
> > Reflecting on the magic they created so effortlessly, McCartney said:
> >
> > "John and I sat down on 295 occasions. On every occasion we sat down, we
> > only spent about three hours and we never ever came out without a song. It
> > is very lucky but we were good and it was a passion. We loved doing it and
> > it sure beat working.
>
> How can Paul remember this so vividly when he can't even remember that he
> did "Here, There and Everywhere" in 1966? He often tells this story where
> John said that that song was much better than any of his in 1965 during the
> filming of "Help!" And nobody ever challenges him or calls him on it. It's
> not being rude, but it's just the truth.
> Unless he's talking about a demo for the song.
>
> > "John was fantastic, a genius. I was privileged to work with him and the
> > fact that we worked together for so long shows how much he appreciated
> > working with me. He could have swopped me at any given point."
>
> He did, in 1968.
>
> > At his poetry reading, McCartney condemned Lennon's killer Mark Chapman as
> > "the jerk of all jerks" and spoke movingly of how they had made up their
> > differences after the acrimonious splitup of the Beatles -- and before he
> > died.
>
> I'm not sure that they ever really cleared up everything, but I do think
> that had John lived that Paul and John would have became close again. I
> think both would have ended up doing a duet together on one's solo album.
> They were truly the "odd couple." Forget Felix and Oscar. It was John and
> Paul. Both couldn't stand each other at times, but they both loved each
> other.
>
> > McCartney is now particularly delighted that the compilation of greatest
> > hits from Wings -- the group he set up with his late wife Linda after the
> > Beatles split -- has sold one million copies in the United States.
> >
> > He feels that Linda, who died of breast cancer in 1998, has been
> vindicated
> > after a barrage of music critics said she should never have been in the
> > band.
>
> All kidding aside, I never thought I'd say this, but I really miss Linda
> and I never knew how much of an impact she had on people until I saw
> "Wingspan." So in that respect, that is what I liked about "Wingspan." I
> know this sounds funny, but I think that Linda was to Paul what Yoko was to
> John, and both brought out the best in each other. I think that if Linda
> was alive, Paul would not be behaving as he has recently with all this
> revisionist crap.
>
> > "I think she was really good," he said. "She would never have said she was
> > the world's greatest musician."
>
> She was okay, but I think she would be more proud for people to remember
> her as a great mum. And wife.
>
> > Tragedy has always stalked McCartney -- his mother died when he was 14,
> then
> > came Lennon's killing and Linda's long but vain fight against cancer.
>
> Tragedy has been a hallmark of the Beatles. Brian Epstein died young.
> Mal died young. Stuart, of course.
>
> > "It is a painful thing, there is no doubt about that," he concluded.
> "That's
> > the nature of life unfortunately. It is the name of the game."
>
> Yes, but life goes on. Bra.
Derek J. Larsson
>
> The thing is that Paul went on the defensive the very day John was shot.
> Within days he was saying this same thing, that Paul was as good as John. I
> NEVER understood where this paranoia comes from, since everyone I know
> regarded them both as equals in the band and since he was the cute one most
> girls liked him best. In the late eighties when he went on tour he was
> still saying the exact same thing. If ANYone is reinforcing the stereotype
> of John being hipper or heavier or whatever, it's HIM. If he won't talk
> about it we won't.
Good point. If Paul acted "hip" or in a "now" manner
he would then naturally be perceived that way.
Instead he acts (somewhat stealthly) like a spoiled punk
because people don't automatically assign the exact same
attributes/achievements to himself that applied for John Lennon.
While they both made large, irreplaceable contributions to
The Beatles - the differences are also equally clear and valid.
Lennon's risk-taking approach to songwriting (and his career),
outspokeness, political activism and cultural influence ..
carried with it penalties that McCartney himself would have
never considered paying. He can't have it both ways.
Paul McCartney can never be John Lennon any more
than he can be Bob Marley or Bob Dylan or Woody Guthrie.
He chose his own turf (top 40) and succeeded at that.
Now he wants to "change the rules" because people
acknowledged Lennon's uniqueness after his murder.
You can't do that .... (no pun intended)
He truely is Mr. "Yesterday" (far more than Lennon even
predicted) ... based on his own behavior
(for most of 2 decades now).
-- Derek
======================================================
Derek J. Larsson EMail: derek_...@3com.com
======================================================
JLW44
> predicted) ... based on his own behavior
> (for most of 2 decades now).
>
>
>-- Derek
Just as Lennon would be had he been given the chance.
Derek J. Larsson
JLW44 wrote:
You got that wrong...
"I don't believe in Yesterday. I believe in the here and the now."
-John Lennon, 1980
In 1980 Lennon was promoting the concept
of a very new type of "nuclear family" with
the male as "househusband" and the female as CEO.
Musically Lennon was incorporating a very
contemporary "new wave" sound along with a little Reggae influence.
He flatly rejected the idea of any type of Beatles reunion (with
them all alive)
and the idea of chasing old illusions and living in the past.
By all accounts Lennon was looking forward ..
and with another band member dead - he would have shot down
any hairbrained scheme at a simulated "reunion" and all the heavy
emphasis on nostalgia, new PR (about old events), and
revisionism.
Lennon would not even tolerate the idea of reunions when
all of them were alive.
"I never went to high school reunions. My thing is
out of sight out of mind."
-J. Lennon
Mister Charlie
successes AND/OR failures. Paul, like the rest of us surviving humans, has
had success and failures like a normal life. As we never got to see Marilyn
Monroe age (she may have been stunning at 55 with all that pancake off of
her face) John is frozen in time, for both good and bad.
We will never have a handle on what he would have done in 1981, 1985, 1993,
2000. He could have been or done practically anything and everything. So
most of this is pure speculation, and nothing more.
"Derek J. Larsson" <derek_...@3com.com> wrote in message
news:3B1D6206...@3com.com...
revolver
I am of the mind that Lennon's feelings in 1980 could have easily changed
again at some point down the road, had he lived.
Personally, I was never one for reunions. . .
But if history was any indication, John was always changing, evolving.
What moved him one day might not the next day.
The Rolling Stone interviews of 1970 reflect a man who was quite bitter,
practically dismissing any possibility of a reunion.
Moving into the mid-70s, John said on several occassions (with Eliot Mintz,
as well as on WNEW, for example) that a reunion wasn't out of the realm of
possibility.
By 1980, he was right off reunions again.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, Derek. . .
The lasting impression we get from John is that a Beatles reunion was out of
the question.
He was murdered before he could continue evolving.
The beauty of John Lennon was one never knew what was on the horizon with
him. .
I'm just suggesting that Mr. Charlie's point is a good one.
Thanks.
Andy
"Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fjonu$4e37d$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
Derek J. Larsson
STEPHE96 wrote:
> McCartney has a point. If, say, Paul had been "martyred" instead of John, then
> we'd all have witnessed John's post-1980 music deteriorate and decline in
> quality, and ALL we'd have of Paul'
Lennon wasn't "martyred" ... his was murdered.
This also happened at a time when he was enjoying his life
and returning back to making music.
It was a tragedy that shocked the whole world and left a
genuine -vacuum- in rock/popular music and in culture
that has not been filled since.
As you may recall, Paul was hyped-up as being "dead"
back in 1970 .. so we have some idea what this would have
been like. Lot's of crying .... but the reaction would not
have been as large an historical event & benchmark.
McCartney was essentially a pop star, while Lennon
was a mover & shaker of culture that integrated music,
message, and social outreach in a way not done before.
There was an inspirational power to Lennon's music & life
that is not matched artistically by McCartney's "Billboard" chart success.
He was also the bands founder and spokesman who best
articulated & embodied the '60s generation.
It is precisely for all of these reasons, that the reverse
situation (McCartney the target for murder) .. is purely
hypothetical and would never have occurred in reality.
Lennon was the lightning rod.
What happened ..... happened.
JLW44
> and with another band member dead - he would have shot down
> any hairbrained scheme at a simulated "reunion" and all the heavy
> emphasis on nostalgia, new PR (about old events), and
>revisionism.
Believe all the illusions you want. But the truth is you will never know. John
was still a young man when he was killed.
JLW44
> situation (McCartney the target for murder) .. is purely
> hypothetical and would never have occurred in reality.
>
> Lennon was the lightning rod.
> What happened ..... happened.
>
In case you hadn't noticed, Lennon was more accessible at the time. Now you are
even projecting why it was more important that Lennon was murdered. This is
about as sick as you can get. You really are delusional about John's
importance. That person couldn't care less about John's political leanings. He
wanted to be notorious and John was an easy target.
Derek J. Larsson
> wanted to be notorious and John was an easy target.
He was a right-wing, bible-thumping, Jesus-freak trained
by the U.S. military. He was obssessed with the idea
of Lennon as a "false prophet" or "false Christ figure"
and could not understand why Lennon might wish to
watch TV or hang around the house.
The "Catcher In the Rye" book fueled this "false Christ" obssession.
Now ... once again would any of the other Beatles
have the makeup or potential to ever represent such an image
in the first place -?
Of course not ...
-- Derek
Tom
>
> > > He truely is Mr. "Yesterday" (far more than Lennon even
> > > predicted) ... based on his own behavior
> > > (for most of 2 decades now).
> > >
> > >
> > >-- Derek
> >
> > Just as Lennon would be had he been given the chance.
>
> You got that wrong...
>
> "I don't believe in Yesterday. I believe in the here and the now."
>
> -John Lennon, 1980
>
> In 1980 Lennon was promoting the concept
> of a very new type of "nuclear family" with
> the male as "househusband" and the female as CEO.
> Musically Lennon was incorporating a very
> contemporary "new wave" sound along with a little Reggae influence.
>
The Reggae/Calypso influence is stronger than the New Wave influence
on Double Fantasy, both on John songs and on Yoko's. In fact, one of
the things I dislike about the albums is the studio musician "island
feel."
The only song of John's that I would call New Wave from that period is
"I Don't Wanna Face It." Slap that on a 45 with "Kiss Kiss Kiss" (the
one time the reggae rhythms worked for them, maybe because it sounds
more like the Patti Smith Group than it does "I Shot The Sheriff" on
this one) and you'd have a classic New Wave single. And you have a
CBGBs full of people disappointed in the album.
fredseaman
If you were in Paul's position, you would start
> thinking about how history will treat you. History, the moving finger
> of time, is a cruel mistress, sterile, fickle and lacking any sense of
> remorse. History has packed many Heroes Of The Day up in cartons and
> shipped them down into the basement to gather dust.
>
> Who remembers Rossini or Mendlesohn? Both gods in their day. On the
> other hand, history picks up unknowns like Bach, even if the process
> takes hundreds of years. This is sheer hell for control freaks.
>
> Paul seems to be interested in how he and the Beatles will be
> portrayed. He cooperates with many authors on a broad range of topics
> (Yesterday, the films, etc etc). His wish to have "Yesterday" as a
> "McCartney/Lennon" copyright may indicate that he wants to make sure
> that his "best" song is clearly remembered as his.
>
> He does *appear* to have a chip on his shoulder regarding Lennon.
> However, it's very difficult to work out where that all comes from --
> to do that one needs to understand Paul, and that's a big ask because
> he doesn't let much out of the bag regarding himself.
>
> On the other hand, most of what he does will have no impact on the
> history at all. Either he doesn't really understand how history
> functions, or he's done other stuff in private for later or posthumous
> release, or he doesn't really care after all.
>
>
> Ian
You make some good points here, Ian. Paul's obsession with his image
viz a viz
JL's is something that he's struggled with since the early days of the
Beatles.
It always bugged him that J was seen as the clever, irreverent Beatle,
while
he was merely the 'cute' one. Certainly J fed Paul's insecurity by
suggesting (during their long period of estrangment) that Paul was
little more
than an overrated schlockmeister. And Paul was no doubt outraged when
YO twisted
the knife in further by suggesting some years ago that Paul merely
played Salieri to JL's Mozart.
Anyway, it is silly & self-defeating for Paul to compare himself with
JL. After all, you can't
compete with the dead, especially when they died a martyr's death that
guarantes
instant canonization in the Church of Rock'n'Roll.
2nd Coming@kingdom.com Chocolate Jesus
"fredseaman" <freds...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e10376a2.01060...@posting.google.com...
> After all, you can't compete with the dead, especially when they died a
martyr's death that
he was murdered in cold blood, you fuckwit.
it's got nothing to do with any of your pompous self-important ideas about
martyrdom and such.
D 28IF
> As you may recall, Paul was hyped-up as being "dead"
> back in 1970 .. so we have some idea what this would have
> been like. Lot's of crying .... but the reaction would not
> have been as large an historical event & benchmark.
>
Oh please, Derek! To say we have an idea what it would have been like had Paul
died, since we saw the reaction in 1969, is one of more utterly ridiculous
comments.
Paul's "death" wasn't witnessed out in public. He even yet hadn't had a solo
career.
And had Paul died back then, you can be sure the things John released
afterwards, save "Imagine," would have been viewed even more harshly than they
were before they were reevaluated after he died.
revolver
"D 28IF" <d2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010605230058...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
I agree with D 28IF on this one. . .
How can one possibly equate, even to a small degree, the "Paul Is Dead" hoax
with the murder of John Lennon?
The "Paul Is Dead" situation was one that certainly drew some attention, but
inasmuch as the majority of people who heard or read about it were curious
as to how such a conclusion could be drawn and what clues existed, it was
never *really* taken seriously for any extended period, was it? Yes, I know
there were radio shows and the like, magazines, the whole bit. . .It was
almost amusing, kind of comical, you might say - a sort of precursor to the
"Elvis Is Really Still Alive" stuff that still permeates to this day.
Safe to say, the overwhelming vast majority of people did NOT take the "Paul
Is Dead" rumor seriously. It was never given credibility, and rightly SO!
Man, what a story that would have been if there was even a HINT of truth in
it! He was the biggest damn star in the world at the time. Any validation
given to such a rumor would have been UNBELIEVABLE!
And one more thing to point out. . .At the time, Paul was still every girl's
CUTE Beatle, arguably the most popular Beatle, certainly still being held in
higher regard in the press than that "weirdo" John Lennon and his wicked
sideboard Yoko. . .(I'm not going into John vs Paul. I'm simply being
general as far as the PRESS'S perception at the time). . .The press would
have OVERBLOWN the legitimate death of Beatle Paul. . .(Certainly the other
Beatles, too. I'm just making a point here). .
It is such a ridiculous point to make - to say that John's death would have
been more of an historical benchmark because one could see how Paul's death
would have went over, based on a hoax.
If Paul HAD died in 1966, as the conspiracists have tatooed on their
foreheads, it would have been BIG BIG news, obviously. . .but the fact of
the matter would remain that he wasn't MURDERED.
Inherently, Paul's so-called death would NEVER measure up to John's very
public assassination.
Fact: John Lennon was shot and killed on a public street - in essence, for
the world to see. He was CUT DOWN vicously, without warning, his wife in
witness, for no reason whatsoever. It was as brutal as it gets. John wasn't
asking for it. There was no mechanical failure of a motorbike, or
planecrash. . .He didn't contract an illness. It wasn't an accident. . . .
He was shot. Of course it is a benchmark event.
He was a member of and founder of the world's most famous band. BECAUSE he
lived a good portion of his life advocating peace, his violent death was
tailor-made for a suit of martyr. . .
Yet, I submit, by virtue of his fame, and the fact that he was a Beatle, and
the fact that he is regarded as one of the greatest composers os all time,
and the fact that he is as BIG a LEGEND as one can be, if Paul McCartney was
gunned down, dare I say that reaction would have been similar to that of
John's passing?
Sure, the retrospectives would be geared differently, but he is f***ing Paul
McCartney for Chrissakes. . .
If John had been killed in a boating accident, or something of the like, the
martyr label would not be what it is now. I'm sorry, but I truly believe
that.
Look, I love John Lennon's music, his words. He meant alot to me. . .Hell,
I've got a damn tatoo of him on my right arm. . .But the way he died is as
much a factor in the "cannonizing" of Lennon as the fact of his death.
No disrespect intended, Derek, honestly.
Just my thoughts. . .
Andy
Mister Charlie
> > That person couldn't care less about John's political leanings. He
> > wanted to be notorious and John was an easy target.
>
> He was a right-wing, bible-thumping, Jesus-freak trained
> by the U.S. military. He was obssessed with the idea
> of Lennon as a "false prophet" or "false Christ figure"
> and could not understand why Lennon might wish to
> watch TV or hang around the house.
> The "Catcher In the Rye" book fueled this "false Christ" obssession.
>
> Now ... once again would any of the other Beatles
> have the makeup or potential to ever represent such an image
> in the first place -?
>
> Of course not ...
Of COURSE they would! ANY celebrity---especially Superstars like all 4
Beatles are---would be targets in this twisted little society.
UsurperTom
>He was a right-wing, bible-thumping, Jesus-freak trained
> by the U.S. military.
No, he prayed to Satan before killing John and even claimed to be a fan of
John. Three months after John's murder, John Hinckley, a diehard John fan who
believed that his world ended three months earlier, shot Ronald Reagan.
Tom
D 28IF
>Yet, I submit, by virtue of his fame, and the fact that he was a Beatle, and
>the fact that he is regarded as one of the greatest composers os all time,
>and the fact that he is as BIG a LEGEND as one can be, if Paul McCartney was
>gunned down, dare I say that reaction would have been similar to that of
>John's passing?
>Sure, the retrospectives would be geared differently, but he is f***ing Paul
>McCartney for Chrissakes. . .
>If John had been killed in a boating accident, or something of the like, the
>martyr label would not be what it is now. I'm sorry, but I truly believe
>that.
>Look, I love John Lennon's music, his words. He meant alot to me. . .Hell,
>I've got a damn tatoo of him on my right arm. . .But the way he died is as
>much a factor in the "cannonizing" of Lennon as the fact of his death.
>
>No disrespect intended, Derek, honestly.
>Just my thoughts. . .
>
>Andy
>
I'll give you an amen over here. ;-)
Had it been Paul back in 1980, the crap he'd released would have been
overlooked or reevaluated. Suddenly "silly love songs" would be hailed as
"innovative" for going against the grain and doing things "his way" despite the
critics and even barbs from his mean old former bandmate.
Geez, they could have made John out to be a horrible person with all the cruel
things he said about Paul. Then it would have been John walking around saying,
"Whew! Sure glad Paul and I made up before he was killed in 1980. I know I said
some horrible things about him during that last decade, but at least I made it
up with him before the end. No, really, I did. He didn't hold it against me. So
you guys shouldn't."
Linda would have been the grieving widow, releasing Paul's demos and having her
own photography showings.
It wouldn't have been that much different. You can take almost anyone and make
them out to be a saint if the circumstances of their death are right.
On the other hand, you probably take anyone considered saint-like, pull apart
their life, and find things you consider hypocritical and very un-saintly.
Mister Charlie
John still gets criticized for his lame recording history in the 70's (shy
of the first two solo albums), his 'lost weekend' behaviour, his devotion to
Sean after having virtually left Julian, and being married to Yoko. I don't
see much canonization there.
"D 28IF" <d2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010606071453...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
revolver
Andy
"Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9flblv$4rua4$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
revolver
No one knows what would have happened.
Thanks.
Andy
"Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9flblv$4rua4$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
TheMutant
Chocolate Jesus <The 2nd Com...@kingdom.com> wrote in message
news:9fk6bs$f20$0...@dosa.alt.net...
Wow, Nikki expressing hatred for someone! Who would have thought such a
thing would ever happen?
LOL!!!!!!!!!
>
>
Derek J. Larsson
> I've got a damn tatoo of him on my right arm.
Tatoos aside .... the point was that John Lennon,
rather than Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, or other
famous Rock figures, best articulated & embodied
the whole '60s generation "thing":
... it's hopes, idealism, sense of outrage, and desire to change
the world - as well as its excesses.
Lennon was a cultural lightning rod - in addition to
being a musical genuis.
There is a vacuum that occurred with the absence of
John Lennon that is much larger than with the loss of other
music stars.
It has little to do with Billboard chart success or fan popularity.
This Lennon has been "marteryed"/"deified" stuff is pure nonsense.
(The reverse is true - Lennon has had his personal life very selectively
picked
picked over like a dead chicken carcass and distorted out of proportion
in a malicious way and been villified like no other music celebrity).
While alive, Lennon was distinguished by receiving the BBC man-of-the-decade
award (in the year 1970) - something that NONE of the OTHER Beatles
would have ever been considered for (thus, the murder had nothing to do
with how he was perceived - he was already perceived this way back then).
It is simply factually true that Lennon was the most significant "voice"
of the 1960s ... he had enormous influence .. people hung on his words and
copied
what he did (psychedelic designs on autos, long hair, granny glasses, peace
signs, etc.).
McCartney was a very successful pop writer .. but he never
had the type of same worldly impact. Murder, for example,
had nothing to do with Paul's embrace of easy-listening music
throughout the 70s (even going as far as unabashfully declaring
this allegiance with: "Silly Love Songs") that "defined" his
image and solo career.
Paul McCartney and fans of McCartney seem to suffer
from this delusional "me-too" disease. Anything and
everything associated with John Lennon must be also
be applied and transfered to Paul under the aimless argument
of : "me-too" ... "I was just as 'good' ".
McCartney had huge commercial success ... a cute face...
... fan adolation/fawning (well beyond Lennon) ... and is a
relentless showbiz salesman (capable of selling bad music in the
same volumes as his good music)
- but he was never a dreamer, never a visionary, an idealist, and
an uncompromising protagonist & critic .. the way that John Lennon was.
These two people had very, very DIFFERENT motivations ..
and as a result - very different impact.
He wasn't the one feared as a potential influence on the 1972 election
by government and targeted for deportation, criminal charges,
and put under surveilliance.
Lennon had a much larger social/cultural influence...beyond just musical
skill.
Lennon's place in history rightly is different than that of McCartney.
The vacuum created by his absence is also very different and far more
profound.
"... No one can ever fill his shoes"
-Elton John
-- Derek
Mister Charlie
>
<snip>
> McCartney had huge commercial success ... a cute face...
> ... fan adolation/fawning (well beyond Lennon) ... and is a
> relentless showbiz salesman (capable of selling bad music in the
> same volumes as his good music)
>
> - but he was never a dreamer, never a visionary, an idealist, and
> an uncompromising protagonist & critic .. the way that John Lennon
was.
>
> These two people had very, very DIFFERENT motivations ..
> and as a result - very different impact.
<snip>
> Lennon had a much larger social/cultural influence...beyond just
musical
> skill.
> Lennon's place in history rightly is different than that of McCartney.
> The vacuum created by his absence is also very different and far more
> profound.
FAR more profound?..no, as you said above, more like in a
profoundly DIFFERENT way.
JLW44
>> and as a result - very different impact.
>
><snip>
They had the same motivation. They wanted to get out of Liverpool and make
money.
>> Lennon had a much larger social/cultural influence...beyond just
>musical
>> skill.
More self promotion you mean. A way to keep his name and 'cause' in the paper,
much the same as Paul is doing now, not necessarily to his credit.
Mister Charlie
That's why they allowed themselves to be pulled around and put on display
and degraded. They wanted to make more money. After they made all the
money is when they started to find other things to do.
But PR always played a part in their lives, they were superstars.
"JLW44" <jl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010606130032...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
revolver
Derek,
First off, the reference to the tattoo was obviously not meant as a point of
contention to strengthen my argument. It was added as an aside in context to
my entire post. . . an attempt at some light-heartedness in the midst of a
quite serious topic. Thank you for quoting it.
>
> Tatoos aside .... the point was that John Lennon,
> rather than Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, or other
> famous Rock figures, best articulated & embodied
> the whole '60s generation "thing":
> ... it's hopes, idealism, sense of outrage, and desire to change
> the world - as well as its excesses.
I am not arguing with you on this point.
> Lennon was a cultural lightning rod - in addition to
> being a musical genuis.
>
> There is a vacuum that occurred with the absence of
> John Lennon that is much larger than with the loss of other
> music stars.
Of course, there was a vacuum that occured when John was killed. Who is
denying that? He was absolutely a musical genius.
But are we talking about the same kind of vacuum, Derek?
The vacuum he left behind for his family was the most tragic, obviously.
there is a vacuum where John Lennon the man should be. . .
But was there a musical vacuum left behind?
Now, keep in mind, I'm using your criteria of being a cultural "lightning
rod," an enormous influence.
Indeed, he was. . .Back in the day.
No doubt.
I don't know of many who were more. . .
But by 1980, he was NOT Beatle John anymore, nor was he Bed-In John, nor was
he "Lost Weekend" John. . .
He was - to quote his own lyric - just "John."
His "influencing" days had, properly, been left behind him.
Time marches on. . .
That's not to say he didn't INSPIRE some, being fourty and "starting over".
. . .
But it was (and still is) his Beatle legacy that remains for us, the fans,
and his early solo material that serves as that "lightning rod," but his
work of 1980 was NOT that "cultural lightning rod" you speak of. . .
Understand what I'm saying here. . .
There is no doubt that I would have LOVED to see where John Lennon's music
would have gone had he lived. For me, personally, he is the greatest
composer ever to grace the landscape of pop music.
But. . .
Your argument focuses on Lennon embodying the "60's" thing. . .And his
idealism and vision. . .
I cannot argue with that. It's all TRUE!
But his ultimate I N F L U E N C E and legacy lies with his Beatles' music
and his early solo material. . .
Unfortunately, it is the way he died after semmingly getting his life in
order that will forever be engrained in people's minds.
I don't know that the music of "Double Fantasy," while wonderful in its own
right, has had the kind of "cultural" impact you speak of.
It's because it came out of the person that USED TO HAVE that kind of
cultural influence that the tragedy resonates all the more. . .
It was the Beatle invasion that changed the world (so to speak). . .
It was the bed-in during a time of social unrest that caught the world's
attention. . .
His legacy (musically) will ALWAYS be The Beatles and his early solo
material (Imagine, etc. . .)
This is not saying that his music on Double Fantasy wasn't good. But it
wasn't a "cultural lightning rod" as "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was, or
"Give Peace A Chance" or "Imagine."
The thing that absolutely outrages and shocks most people (I think so
anyway) is the fact that the man who WROTE songs like "Strawberry Fields,"
"All You Need Is Love," "Give Peace A Chance," "Imagine" - the guy who was
part of (and founder) of the greatest band in history - the guy who was
misquoted on his views of Christianity - that guy who did all the protesting
for peace way back then - the guy who meant alot to so many people - that
guy who had a vision of world peace - was murdered.
John's assassination helped rekindle memories and images of what John was
all about during his "lightning rod" days - namely nonviolent protest,
peace, and social change. . .That is what John will always be remembered
for. . .
And yes, it IS VERY VALID and VERY REAL. . .
I don't deny that. How could I?
I also point out that during the period when "Double Fantasy" was being
released, renewed interest of Lennon's doings in the 60s and 70s were
treated as interesting nostalgia from the angle of "the hippie who grew up"
and similar sentiments. . .His actions during his "peace movement" era were
never invalidated, mind you. They were, however, brought back into the
limelight because he had emerged from his self-imposed hibernation.
Everything "Lennon" was new again.
He was back!
So, naturally everything surrounding him was "fresh."
But for the previous five years, he was NO lightning rod. . .
It was his previous work that stood as the trigger, when he was STILL that
"lightning rod."
Prior to that, his albums "Sometime In New York City," "Mind Games" and
"Walls And Bridges" were NOT musical lightning rods either. . .
If Paul McCartney had been murdered, you cannot possibly believe that his
death would not have had the same far reaching impact as John's.
You are, in fact, selling people short.
You invalidate Paul's impact (and don't say you don't) because his songs did
not meet your criteria for relevance. He was NOT a social visionary, as you
say.
And if he wasn't, so what?
His songs meant as much to people as John's did to others. . .
Paul was ALSO a member of The Beatles. . .Are those who may have been more
politically minded and connecting with John mourning more than those who
might have mourned at the death of Paul McCartney?
I think not.
You see what I mean?
Again, your points are validones , but I tend to disagree.
As far as the "cultural" lightning rod aspect of John, that was long gone by
1980. . .He was NOT out there making it happen, either politically or
socially. Indeed, much of the press made much of the fact that John was
"re-emerging" after a half-decade of "disappearing." His "lightning days"
were well behind him at that point. His biggest cultural impact came with
his three shaggy haired friends years earlier. . .That's not saying that the
work he and Yoko did beginning in late sixties wasn't focused on more
relevant issues than just collarless jackets and puddin-basin haircuts. .
.but the fact remains that while Lennon's motivations were, perhaps, more
relevant to mankind in the grander scheme of things after he met Yoko, his
"fans" didn't love him anymore than "Paul's" fans. . .And in the end, when
someone is tragically cut down in the prime of life, that person's
popularity plays a part in it, as does the body of work that person has left
behind, and the impact that person has left on many people. . .
>
> It has little to do with Billboard chart success or fan popularity.
>
> This Lennon has been "marteryed"/"deified" stuff is pure nonsense.
Your assertion here is pure nonsense.
You are the proof.
There seems to be a kind of jealousy that becomes somewhat validated in the
minds of pro-John, anti-Paul people (and I use that labelling in very
general terms just to make a point) at Paul's post-Beatle commercial success
by writing off his music as "fluff" and "non-relevant" and "trite" and so
forth, while John's was "poignant" and "cutting edge," etc. . . .Whether or
not that's true isn't the point. . . .John would have easily welcomed chart
success - the very definition of being "commercial." He's said so on quite a
few occassions. . But because John did NOT have the chart success that Paul
had, it is easy to say that John wrote from his heart and did not compromise
his principals, while Paul always shot for the hit record. . .
Hey, there is truth in that to a degree. . .
By nature, John was always evolving. . .He started off writing pop records,
then began delving into his artistic side, then eventually began writing
about himself for the most part. . .
By nature, Paul was more formula driven. . .
That doesn't mean that John was *better* than Paul. As a fan, it all comes
down to preference.
My personal prefernce, in terms of style, was John's.
>
> (The reverse is true - Lennon has had his personal life very
selectively
> picked
> picked over like a dead chicken carcass and distorted out of
proportion
> in a malicious way and been villified like no other music celebrity).
BECAUSE he was killed and is not here to defend himself. . .
His exploits during the late 60s and early 70s were "picked" apart because
he was still in the fish bowl, still in the public eye, still a "Beatle" in
alot of people's minds. . .And what degree of fame can be more confining
than being a damn Beatle?
During his haitus, there just wasn't alot being written about him. Perhaps
because we knew that he was still alive and would probably emerge sooner or
later.
When he was killed, he was - as Mr. Charlie said - frozen in time. . .as
were the "recollections" of his activist-period, his Beatle image, all of
it.
That image, and the culminating retrospective of everything Lennon that was
spreading during the Double Fantasy release period is what was suspended in
time.
Since December 8, 1980, it really hasn't subsided. . . .
From then on, his legend just snowballed. . .
As did the "pick apart John" books. . .
He was, like it or not, deified.
>
> While alive, Lennon was distinguished by receiving the BBC
man-of-the-decade
>
> award (in the year 1970) - something that NONE of the OTHER Beatles
> would have ever been considered for (thus, the murder had nothing to
do
> with how he was perceived - he was already perceived this way back
then).
A terrific honor, indeed.
How do you know who else was considered for this?
> It is simply factually true that Lennon was the most significant
"voice"
> of the 1960s ... he had enormous influence .. people hung on his
words and
> copied
> what he did (psychedelic designs on autos, long hair, granny glasses,
peace
> signs, etc.).
>
> McCartney was a very successful pop writer .. but he never
> had the type of same worldly impact.
What do you mean 'wordly' impact?
Are you using the right term?
McCartney toured the WORLD and had quite a bit of impact in the middle
1970s.
Do you mean in terms of social relevance?
Adressing relevant issues?
Hey, John was political, Paul wasn't. That's a crime?
John was a better person for it?
Murder, for example,
> had nothing to do with Paul's embrace of easy-listening music
> throughout the 70s (even going as far as unabashfully declaring
> this allegiance with: "Silly Love Songs") that "defined" his
> image and solo career.
>
> Paul McCartney and fans of McCartney seem to suffer
> from this delusional "me-too" disease. Anything and
> everything associated with John Lennon must be also
> be applied and transfered to Paul under the aimless argument
> of : "me-too" ... "I was just as 'good' ".
John did too.
Sorry.
>
> McCartney had huge commercial success ... a cute face...
> ... fan adolation/fawning (well beyond Lennon) ... and is a
> relentless showbiz salesman (capable of selling bad music in the
> same volumes as his good music)
Lennon never wrote bad music, eh?
>
> - but he was never a dreamer, never a visionary, an idealist, and
> an uncompromising protagonist & critic .. the way that John Lennon
was.
>
> These two people had very, very DIFFERENT motivations ..
> and as a result - very different impact.
>
> He wasn't the one feared as a potential influence on the 1972 election
> by government and targeted for deportation, criminal charges,
> and put under surveilliance.
>
> Lennon had a much larger social/cultural influence...beyond just
musical
> skill.
Lennon's place in history rightly is different than that of McCartney.
> The vacuum created by his absence is also very different and far more
> profound.
>
>
> "... No one can ever fill his shoes"
> -Elton John
That is the truest statement I've ever heard.
No one can ever fill his shoes.
Thanks, Derek.
revolver
Whole-heartedly. . .
Excellent point.
"Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9flo34$4p8h4$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
TheMutant
> >> and as a result - very different impact.
> >
> ><snip>
>
> They had the same motivation. They wanted to get out of Liverpool and make
> money.
Yeh
>
> >> Lennon had a much larger social/cultural influence...beyond just
> >musical
> >> skill.
>
> More self promotion you mean. A way to keep his name and 'cause' in the
paper,
> much the same as Paul is doing now, not necessarily to his credit.
Very good point! John's whole peace movement was about publicity. Not
necessarily for bad reasons, but it was self aggrandizing for sure.
TheMutant
Mister Charlie <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9flo34$4p8h4$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
> That's why they allowed themselves to be pulled around and put on display
> and degraded. They wanted to make more money. After they made all the
> money is when they started to find other things to do.
> But PR always played a part in their lives, they were superstars.
>
Britney Spears or N'Sync.
Derek J. Larsson
Mister Charlie wrote:
> > McCartney had huge commercial success ... a cute face...
> > ... fan adolation/fawning (well beyond Lennon) ... and is a
> > relentless showbiz salesman (capable of selling bad music in the
> > same volumes as his good music)
> >
> > - but he was never a dreamer, never a visionary, an idealist, and
> > an uncompromising protagonist & critic .. the way that John Lennon
> was.
> >
> > These two people had very, very DIFFERENT motivations ..
> > and as a result - very different impact.
>
> > Lennon had a much larger social/cultural influence...beyond just
> musical
> > skill.
> > Lennon's place in history rightly is different than that of McCartney.
> > The vacuum created by his absence is also very different and far more
> > profound.
>
> FAR more profound?..no, as you said above, more like in a
> profoundly DIFFERENT way.
When the dreamer, the idealist, the critic, the guy who best
exemplified the spirit of the 1960s (and early 70s) is the figure
that is the one involved - then you do have a lot more than just
pop music or celebrity or popularity at stake .. and, necessarily, it is
far
more profound and a far more deeper & unfillable vaccum that is left.
There are others in pop music who make "McCartney-esque" type of music
...
I don't see or hear any "John Lennon's" out there ... folks...
"John Lennon was not Britanny Spears. There was this
great political and social content to Lennon's music and he
had far more influence and power than any of today's singers do."
-G. Gordan Lidy (VH-1)
[Right-Wing radio/TV host, ex-CIA terrorist-criminal,
ex-Watergate-bugler, ex-NIxon-"plummer" ]
TheMutant
Derek J. Larsson
JLW44 wrote:
> > These two people had very, very DIFFERENT motivations ..
> >> and as a result - very different impact.
> >
> ><snip>
>
> They had the same motivation. They wanted to get out of Liverpool and make
> money.
Initially .... but with time - the different motivations were clear.
McCartney wanted to be a showbiz entertainer and
"husband" his popularity. His motivatations were
superficial and self-oriented.
Lennon wanted to be a protagonist, an activist,
and a catalyst for change, live by his rules - rather than
those imposed by the music industry or showbusiness.
His motivations were artistic and cultural.
revolver
"TheMutant" <Muta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9flsbu$502ft$1...@ID-69012.news.dfncis.de...
TheMutant
revolver <revo...@teknology.net> wrote in message
news:tht0j7...@corp.supernews.com...
Derek J. Larsson
revolver wrote:
> > the point was that John Lennon,
> > rather than Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, or other
> > famous Rock figures, best articulated & embodied
> > the whole '60s generation "thing":
> > ... it's hopes, idealism, sense of outrage, and desire to change
> > the world - as well as its excesses.
>
> I am not arguing with you on this point.
>
> > There is a vacuum that occurred with the absence of
> > John Lennon that is much larger than with the loss of other
> > music stars.
>
> Of course, there was a vacuum that occured when John was killed. Who is
> denying that? He was absolutely a musical genius.
> But are we talking about the same kind of vacuum, Derek?
> The vacuum he left behind for his family was the most tragic, obviously.
> there is a vacuum where John Lennon the man should be. . .
> But was there a musical vacuum left behind?
> Now, keep in mind, I'm using your criteria of being a cultural "lightning
> rod," an enormous influence.
>
> Indeed, he was. . .Back in the day.
> No doubt.
> I don't know of many who were more. . .
> But by 1980, he was NOT Beatle John anymore, nor was he Bed-In John, nor was
> he "Lost Weekend" John. . .
> He was - to quote his own lyric - just "John."
> His "influencing" days had, properly, been left behind him.
I disagree.
He was promoting the concept of a new type of
"nuclear family" with the male as a 'househusband'
and the female as CEO. As usual, Lennon was
ahead of the pack on this one.
This social dynamic came into being in the 80s and 90s.
His 1980 interviews show he was very much in
tune with the times .. and his remarks to Yoko:
"We have to tell the kids (fans) it gets better after
10 years" - show his relevance during the coming
decade of AIDES and perceptions of sex and relationships.
Lennon had been silent for 5 years - by choice.
There is no reason to assume he would not have been
a visible factor upon his return. He already had plans
for a tour, a second album, a protest march in San Francisco,
and a second hosting of the (special) Mike Douglas show
at the time of his murder.
Lennon was "starting over".
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-John Lennon, 1980
(I think the man still "had it" )
> But it was (and still is) his Beatle legacy that remains for us, the fans,
> and his early solo material that serves as that "lightning rod," but his
> work of 1980 was NOT that "cultural lightning rod" you speak of. . .
It was too incomplete to judge ... taken together with the things
he was planning - Lennon was not going to be sitting on the
sidelines or repressing his ability to galvenize issues and causes
he believed in. The Vietnam War and NIxon were gone ... but
the 1980s brought other challanges .. other issues as well as
the 90s ... the witchhunt against Bill Clinton - the corrupt 2000
s(election)
... no doubt Lennon would have weighed in on these issues.
>
> For me, personally, he is the greatest
> composer ever to grace the landscape of pop music.
> But. . .
> Your argument focuses on Lennon embodying the "60's" thing. . .And his
> idealism and vision. . .
> I cannot argue with that. It's all TRUE!
> But his ultimate I N F L U E N C E and legacy lies with his Beatles' music
> and his early solo material. . .
Even if I accept that - my points would remain as they were stated earlier.
> John's assassination helped rekindle memories and images of what John was
> all about during his "lightning rod" days - namely nonviolent protest,
> peace, and social change. . .That is what John will always be remembered
> for. . .
> And yes, it IS VERY VALID and VERY REAL. . .
> I don't deny that. How could I?
>
> But for the previous five years, he was NO lightning rod. . .
>
Yes - but by sharing what his priorities and focus was during
those 5 years - Lennon laid the groundwork for a new type of
music career path. A path that said the record industry
does not either own you or declare you are "washed up".
It is possible for you to leave it all alone - and come back again
on your terms. Lennon was opening another door.
The "lightning rod" effect was cumulative as well as
relating to specific moments in time. Lennon was
always an "original" and his intangible talents and
what he stood for was never going to just not exist.
I should also point out, Lennon's imposed 5 year
retirement - was largely a result of the U.S. Right-wing
forces clamping down on him - and forcing him into
a "plan B" type of situation with his career focus.
Check out: http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/fa/20001208.fa.03.ram
>
> Prior to that, his albums "Sometime In New York City," "Mind Games" and
> "Walls And Bridges" were NOT musical lightning rods either. . .
The "John Sinclair" concert (protest) in Michigan that he organized was
one of his true career highlights (also featured Stevie Wonder,
MC-5, Bob Seager). Sinclair was released from jail. This was
the beginning end of Lennon's plans to bring together Rock music
and political activism and begin to focus on the youth vote for
the 1972 election. Lennon's influence had been demonstrated.
Nixon would be the next target. (note: the FBI attended this concert).
Those plans were eventually aborted with the FBI/CIA breathing
down his back.
Lennon was forced into a muffling his own ambitions and artistic
focus. His albums were inconsistent as a result ... but some
good songs appear on "Mind Games" and a few on "Walls & Bridges".
> If Paul McCartney had been murdered, you cannot possibly believe that his
> death would not have had the same far reaching impact as John's.
Paul was a play-it-safe pop star and musician.
He made some great music .. some lame music .. but
his "impact" was essentially commercial and transitory
- not cultural or artistic.
> You invalidate Paul's impact (and don't say you don't) because his songs did
> not meet your criteria for relevance. He was NOT a social visionary, as you
> say.
> And if he wasn't, so what?
It doesn't mean there is anything "wrong" or "inadequate"
about him - but it does mean he did not have the type of
cultural impact as John Lennon (few do).
A social idealist who was (among many other things) the most
articulate voice of the 1960s - would necessarily have a greater
cultural impact than those who do not fit that type of description
(which is virtually everyone else). None of this is a "slight"
against McCartney. Lennon was not like anyone else.
>
> Paul was ALSO a member of The Beatles. . .Are those who may have been more
> politically minded and connecting with John mourning more than those who
> might have mourned at the death of Paul McCartney?
> I think not.
I am not comparing "mourning" or popularity .. it is very likely
Paul's death would have never produced the negative backlash
(Goldman, Seaman, etc.) type of reaction that John's did (which
still surprises me and is sleazy).
The overall impact would be different though.
I doubt you would ever see Fidel Castro erecting a statue
of Paul McCartney or Yassir Arafat quoting from
Paul McCartney. You see these thing with
John Lennon though - because he had that type
of influence.
> > It has little to do with Billboard chart success or fan popularity.
> > This Lennon has been "marteryed"/"deified" stuff is pure nonsense.
>
> Your assertion here is pure nonsense.
>
Wrong ... nothing has been attributed to Lennon that
his music, words, activism, idealism, protaganism, art,
and the manner in which he lived his life - don't demonstrate.
On the otherhand, there are all these anti-Lennon books
by people who have a vendetta against either Lennon,
his wife, or both. Lennon, overall, has been treated
quite shabbily overall. None the ex-beatles attended
his cremation or attended his ten-year anniversary tribute
(in person) .. and the Anthology, exploited John's music,
as a money-making & PR vehicle for the Three-tles
gain - and to embellish their own precious "images"
(while giving scant mention of John's leadership role).
No artistic purpose, and purely exploitative.
What a disservice. The Three-tles "milk-the-cow"
behavior - shows how much of a huge void was left
by the absence of Lennon's qualities of integrity
and artistic purpose.
> There seems to be a kind of jealousy that becomes somewhat validated in the
> minds of pro-John, anti-Paul people (and I use that labelling in very
> general terms just to make a point) at Paul's post-Beatle commercial success
> by writing off his music as "fluff" and "non-relevant" and "trite" and so
> forth, while John's was "poignant" and "cutting edge," etc. . . .Whether or
> not that's true isn't the point. . .
But that can not be irrelevant.
The Partridge Family was commercially successful, so
were New-Kid-On-The-Block.
Literally anything can SELL given enough marketing hype
and resources put behind it ... Cheese-Wiz sells.
That does not make it good for you to eat.
> .John would have easily welcomed chart
> success - the very definition of being "commercial."
Sure ... who wouldn't.
> That doesn't mean that John was *better* than Paul. As a fan, it all comes
> down to preference.
>
I haven't used the words "better" because, of course, that is subjective.
I have talked about cultural influence, social influence, artistic depth
idealism, ability to articulate the dreams and hopes of his times,
and his risk-taking approach to his music and career.
> From then on, his legend just snowballed. . .
> As did the "pick apart John" books. . .
> He was, like it or not, deified.
>
No .. if that were true Lennon would not have been
recognized with the man-of-the-decade award in 1970.
The perception today is the same as it was then.
He was a cultural lightning rod and musical genuis
then and will always be regarded that way.
Not because his death ... but because his life-work
operated in this territory (as perceived both in 1970
and today - 20 years after his death).
> Hey, John was political, Paul wasn't. That's a crime?
> John was a better person for it?
>
That was never said.
There is a different cultural and social impact though.
> > - but he (Paul) was never a dreamer, never a visionary, an idealist,
> and
> > an uncompromising protagonist & critic .. the way that John Lennon was
>
revolver
>
>
> JLW44 wrote:
>
> > > These two people had very, very DIFFERENT motivations ..
> > >> and as a result - very different impact.
> > >
> > ><snip>
> >
> > They had the same motivation. They wanted to get out of Liverpool and
make
> > money.
>
> Initially .... but with time - the different motivations were clear.
>
> McCartney wanted to be a showbiz entertainer and
> "husband" his popularity. His motivatations were
> superficial and self-oriented
John's motives - by his own admission - were all centered around Yoko Ono. .
. about being her "husband." . . .about being with HER exclusively.
Love is always superficial, isn't it? Love is always selfish, isn't it?
Ask John AND Paul. . .
>
> Lennon wanted to be a protagonist, an activist,
> and a catalyst for change, live by his rules - rather than
> those imposed by the music industry or showbusiness.
> His motivations were artistic and cultural.
What?!
John's motivation was LESS self-oriented than Paul's?
Come now, Derek. . . .
Making pop music is more selfish than pushing your political agenda forth?
You keep intimating that John was not as interested in making music that was
commercially successful as Paul was. By John's own admission, his and Yoko's
"events" were nothing but showbiz to get the world's attention.
We're not talking which person's intentions were more admirable, although an
argument can be made for both. We're not talking about which one's motives
were more desirable, or more socially consciousness. You're incorrectly
summizing that just because one is active in social causes, or is concerned
with justices and injustices, then that classifies him or her as
automatically altruistic.
You're comparing one person's art to another. . .One person's outlet for
creativity to another's. . . .
John was about what made John happy. . .as we all are to a certain degree
about ourselves.
Nothing wrong with that. People change. Things happen. It's the way of the
world.
He was about forwarding whatever his agenda was - like EVERYONE is in one
way or another. . .
His agenda was socially motivated. Noble, yes. But no less VALID than Paul's
expressiveness, which was trying to entertain people with the craft he was
blessed with - performing pop music. .
It, again, comes down to preference. . .Personally, I IDENTIFY more with
John Lennon than I do Paul McCartney, but don't start in with the Paul is
selfish-John is artistic and cultural bit for the sake of deifying him -
which is what you are doing.
That's YOUR agenda.
Thanks, Derek.
Andy
Countryboycangethigh
2nd Coming@kingdom.com Chocolate Jesus
> Wow, Nikki expressing hatred for someone!
sure no problem.
but i dont hate you marek.
i just think you're a piece of dogshit, just like everyone else on RMB
thinks youre a piece of dogshit.
go ahead, ask around.....:)
2nd Coming@kingdom.com Chocolate Jesus
piss off, dogshit..:)
2nd Coming@kingdom.com Chocolate Jesus
> Yes, I am piece of dogshit.
tsk tsk that's not nice..:)
Mister Charlie
.
>
> McCartney wanted to be a showbiz entertainer and
> "husband" his popularity. His motivatations were
> superficial and self-oriented.
>
> Lennon wanted to be a protagonist, an activist,
> and a catalyst for change, live by his rules - rather than
> those imposed by the music industry or showbusiness.
> His motivations were artistic and cultural.
You make him sound like Mother Teresa. You have a good handle on some of
the facts, but then you come to a rather John-centric conclusion each time.
John did not work in a vacuum, nor could he have ever been a solo prior to
the Beatles. He and Paul grew WITH each other like two trees intertwined,
until they naturally grew apart. Not Paul's fault that he has a different
muse than John. They were both geniuses who needed each other to get the
confidence to break away from each other, which would have to happen.
Mister Charlie
"Countryboycangethigh" <I...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B1EAA92...@hotmail.com...
Osborne,
Chocolate Jesus wrote:
he's right y'know... :-)
Mister Charlie
"Osborne," <Osbo...@Sydney.BTAP.BT.com> wrote in message
news:3B1F4EF6...@Sydney.BTAP.BT.com...
> >
> > go ahead, ask around.....:)
>
> he's right y'know... :-)
just....*hold* these droomsticks....
>
Derek J. Larsson
revolver wrote:
> John's motives - by his own admission - were all centered around Yoko Ono. .
> . about being her "husband." . . .about being with HER exclusively.
His work itself was not exclusively about Yoko...his
deeply involved relationship with her .. does not
somehow negate the raw materials he produced.
> > Lennon wanted to be a protagonist, an activist,
> > and a catalyst for change, live by his rules - rather than
> > those imposed by the music industry or showbusiness.
> > His motivations were artistic and cultural.
>
> John's motivation was LESS self-oriented than Paul's?
> Come now, Derek. . . .
Someone involved with social outreach, trying to speak
out against and change repressive forces in the world ..
is outwardly focused - not inwardly focused.
> Making pop music is more selfish than pushing your political agenda forth?
Let's just say that Lennon's music, art, life story and activism displayed
a greater sense of artistic purpose and sincerity of purpose and concern
for the world around him.
> You keep intimating that John was not as interested in making music that was
> commercially successful as Paul was. By John's own admission, his and Yoko's
> "events" were nothing but showbiz to get the world's attention.
Well .. you left out part of it. They were "commercials" or
methods of drawing attention to the causes themselves.
For decades War has been actively promoted by governments
through "war film" that glorify war and other propaganda.
Those techniques influence people by replacing their natural
horror of warfare with misguided feelings of nationalism, heroism,
and "patriotism". In essence - people are turned into pawns and
then sent into battle as disposable pieces.
Lennon was trying to use a similar approach at rallying people
around the cause of peace and independence from warfare.
He would say: "If everyone demanded an end to the war instead
of a new TV - we'd have peace."
What he was doing was trying to turn the tables.
How you equate this with "selfishness" is bizzare.
Lennon was trying to bring an end to the war by:
- Openly speaking out against it
- Doing these "commercials" and "ads." for peace
- Creating music to assist the anti-war movement
- Seeking to galvonize the (new) youth vote in 1972
against Nixon.
- Addressing other issues such as womans rights, civil rights,
worker fairness, freedom to smoke pot, etc.
All of this was outwardly focused .. and had nothing to do
with simply being "popular" or making money. These things
on the contrary created a lot of grief and personal problems
for him.
He did them anyway ...
> It, again, comes down to preference. . .Personally, I IDENTIFY more with
> John Lennon than I do Paul McCartney, but don't start in with the Paul is
> selfish-John is artistic and cultural bit for the sake of deifying him -
> which is what you are doing.
I am not deifying him.
Lennon was not without faults, failures, sloppyness, etc.
I am saying that he did generate a far more important and
larger cultural and social impact - and his absence
represents a vacuum unlike the death of any other music figure.
McCartney for all his material success .. did not have
this type of cultural or social impact based on his own
material & life. That doesn't mean he was bad or
unimportant .... that doesn't mean some people may
prefer his lighter music or personality ...
The point is Lennon is not perceived any differently
now (after his death) than he was back in 1970
when he got the man-of-the-decade award.
None of the other rock figures .. had that type of
platform. That (alone) does make him distinct from the others.
Again, we see everyone from Fidel Castro and Yassir Arafat quoting
not from McCartney (nor will they) - but from John Lennon.
That is part of Lennon's legacy and influence ... and -not-
any of the other Three-tles.
McCartney (nor his fans) cannot simply
"me-too" his way into portraying that he had
the same type of cultural impact. He did not.
Mister Charlie
revolver
Derek,
I appreciate the debate.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the various points brought out during
this thread. . .
I will never negate the goodness in John's heart, the issues he addressed,
the work that he and Yoko put forth in the name of peace, justice and
fairness. He was a visionary - perhaps one of the greatest pop culture
visionaries who has ever been.
I'll leave it at that. . .
On to other threads.
Thanks, Derek
"Derek J. Larsson" <derek_...@3com.com> wrote in message
news:3B1EC311...@3com.com...
Derek J. Larsson
Mister Charlie wrote:
> "Derek J. Larsson" <derek_...@3com.com> wrote in message
> news:3B1E7F18...@3com.com...
> .
> >
> > McCartney wanted to be a showbiz entertainer and
> > "husband" his popularity. His motivatations were
> > superficial and self-oriented.
> >
> > Lennon wanted to be a protagonist, an activist,
> > and a catalyst for change, live by his rules - rather than
> > those imposed by the music industry or showbusiness.
> > His motivations were artistic and cultural.
>
>
> John did not work in a vacuum, nor could he have ever been a solo prior to
> the Beatles. He and Paul grew WITH each other ....
No argument..(although a different issue).
Lennon benefitted from his associations
with Brian Epstein, Paul, George, George Martin, and Yoko.
However, vacuums aside, the point was Lennon
did have a more profound influence.
He was in addition to being a music genius,
a decidely message-oriented, purpose-oriented type of
songwriter, a (unusually) quoteable wit and armchair philosopher,
an artist, poet, and on-the-ground political activist,
and the one who best articulated the hopes and dreams
and outrage of the 60s generation and created a "platform"
that the other three-tles did not have.
This does put him in a different category than McCartney...
if one is truley objective about it. There is no way you
can just overlook that. He has a distinct legacy because
he did operate on a different level. What Lennon did was
much harder and rarer to do than just write successful pop songs.
Mister Charlie
jail cot this morning?
"Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B1ED53F...@hotmail.com...
TheMutant
Chocolate Jesus <The 2nd Com...@kingdom.com> wrote in message
news:9fm7jv$pn8$0...@pita.alt.net...
>
> > Wow, Nikki expressing hatred for someone!
>
> sure no problem.
It's all you do.
>
> but i dont hate you marek.
I'm not Marek, but you can keep saying it and making an ass of yourself all
you want. :-)
>
> i just think you're a piece of dogshit, just like everyone else on RMB
> thinks youre a piece of dogshit.
You're insane.
>
> go ahead, ask around.....:)
Why did you post all those scat stories here Nikki?
>
>
TheMutant
>
>
> piss off, dogshit..:)
piss off, dogshit...:)
>
>