I'm the same age that John would be had he lived. Loved the music but not the brightest boys in hindsight. What John is talking here ? The heroin addict ? The one LSD'd out of his mind ? The multi millionaire who left his first son to sue the estate after his death for a few crumbs ? The peace and love guy that terrorized the club scene with Neilson and other drunks when he left Yoko ? Lennon gave NOTHING to charities in his time on earth even though worth hundreds of millions. If you look closely you'll find a self obsessed individual who talks the talk but never walked the walk. Hypocrisy is where you find it , even in the vapid commentary from a rock star. The problem with youth is they are easily fooled with these types. I know , I was one , then I joined the grown up real world. Passive people throughout history soon become wiling and easy prey for the strong and evil among us.
I'm sure that Ghandi would agree with you. I mean, shit....he was so "passive" he managed to kick the snot out of an empire (successfully) without even firing a single shot.
As for Lennon, sure: he had his unique "recreational habits", and I think everyone knows that. But that does not take away from the substance of what the man was advocating---or its validity. His philosophy is sound; his outlook smacks of common sense, plus all the points he's raised were literally prophetic. Just look at the criminal enterprise that's running the White House this minute, and everything they've accomplished/soiled. Kinda makes Lennon look like a goddamn clairvoyant....don't it?
Goodness....did I learn something from "gbbm", or is what he says not so? I was not a Beatles person while they were popular (but then, I thought the
Edsel was a good idea, so...?) but always have associated John Lennon with the "peaceful protest" deal, like putting roses in the National
Guardmens' rifles, and like that.
Was he indeed just posturing?
Will my post last long enough for anyone to read it and respond?
John Lennon was an art student who got lucky by having an inferior song-writing partner to make him look good. His world view was simplistic, unworkable and ultimately populist. He was neither funny, talented or influential. Basically - a pop song writer from a council house who was in the right place at the right time.
It is an insult to the lkes of Dylan, Cohen, Waits etc to mention him in the same breath. It is self evident he was crap musically because you have to be crap for so many people aged between 10 and 25 to buy your records.
Aren't you letting a personal dislike for the man taint your view just a bit?
Even McCartney's on the record long ago, as saying they basically looked upon John as the de facto "leader" of the Beatles, and that his songwriting/singing bordered on "genius".
Shit, I got nothing against Dylan et al, plus Jagger as well as a plethora of talent from that era.
Plus...if you've seen the interviews with him from way, way back, when the Beatles were touring, you'll see that he IS funny; as a matter of fact, he was actually kinda hilarious. He was always making fools out of the reporters doing the interview at the time, by giving them all kinds of wise-ass answers, and it was made all the funnier because the reporters just never clued in.
Also, the Beatles movie "Help" is one of my all-time favs.
I always thought I liked Dylan until I saw that film about him with paltrow, leger et al
Now I think he was quite possibly one of the most pretentious, worthless shits to have ever drawn breath. His stuff really is pure unadulterated wank and to think I, as a callow youth, saught solace in his words???
Nah! I was merely being the same pretentious twat Dylan was.
Lennon reached more people in a way which made them think
Dylan reached more people in a way which made them think WTF was he on?
Comments (32)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.