I've always liked the a-side. If you don't like John singing about himself, you probably don't like most of his post-Beatles music either. Some may call it "self-indulgent", but a whole lot of people really eat up all that introspective, personal stuff. When a person makes art about something that they themselves are feeling, it tends to feel more powerful and intense to the end viewer/listener, especially if it's done right. Take Paul for an example of the opposite end of the spectrum. He almost never puts himself into his music. He sings to universally appealing things, or he tells stories about other people. This takes a different kind of talent, and has a very different, but still enjoyable, effect on the end viewer/listener. The only pieces of himself he usually put in his music is that he loved Linda, and that was painfully obvious to anyone who saw them together when she was around. You don't know about their fights, which they undoubtedly had, because they chose to keep them private (which is valid, of course; as I said, it's just two different styles of music and also of life). The one time he actually writes a song about something personal, when he says he loves John, everyone's jaw drops.
If you don't like John singing about himself, you probably don't like most of his post-Beatles music either.
Not trying to turn this into yet another John vs Paul thread but I just want to point out that Paul could write about personal things, he just chose not to do it in an obvious way like John did. I like John's personal songs like Mother but TBOJAY just comes off as totally self-involved. Wow, people don't like your annoying girlfriend. Poor you.
ballad of j&y - for me, everything good about this song is from paul
I agree about Paul. I know that he can and just usually chooses not to, hence my mention of "Here Today" whose title I just remembered. However, the song doesn't mention anyone not liking Yoko, so I don't know where you're getting that criticism from.
That was the general attitude towards her at the time the song was written.
i was never quite sure why old brown shoe made the blue 'best of' double album - but i'm glad it did
Catchy song but I totally hate the lyrics. Typical self-indulgent Lennon lyrics, especially that Christ/crucify thing. he knew that would p*ss people off.
I wonder to if John was making a cheeky reference to Dylans recent The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest.The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde?
The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde?
The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde?
Plus look at John's outfit.
I'm not sure what you mean
Joking with religion. As he did in his ballad.
I agree about Paul. I know that he can and just usually chooses not to,
Where are you getting these cover images?
The Beatles CD Singles Collection
Released in late 1992, this 22 CD box set was designed like the EP set, but reproducing all of the original British single releases. All of the 5" discs have individual sleeves similar to the original British issue picture sleeves. The box was issued in Britain November 2 (CD BSCP 1), in the USA on November 11 (C2 0777 7 15901 2 2), and in Japan on March 24, 1993 (TOCP-7701/7722).
These 22 singles were first released on the compact disc format in 1988 and 1989 as individually packaged 3" CDs. Japan also isued their 3" singles in a beautiful blue miniature box set in December 1989 (TODP-2121/2142).
Where are you getting these cover images? Judging by the size of the barcodes, it looks like they're CDs. As far as I'm aware the singles were never released on individual CDs, so are they knockoffs?
I've always liked the a-side. If you don't like John singing about himself, you probably don't like most of his post-Beatles music either.
And JOHN IS THE MOST SINCERE ARTIST OF THE 20TH CENTURY.
And JOHN IS THE MOST SINCERE ARTIST OF THE 20TH CENTURY.
I. And JOHN IS THE MOST SINCERE ARTIST OF THE 20TH CENTURY.
whatever gets you through the night went to the top
it hit number one in states
.
.
also, u.s.a. is like 5 or 6 times the population of england so hitting number one here reflects alot more than uk ..... (yeah, i said it ha2ha)
whatever gets you through the night went to the top
it hit number one in states
.
.
also, u.s.a. is like 5 or 6 times the population of england so hitting number one here reflects alot more than uk ..... (yeah, i said it ha2ha)
It usually reflects America's bad taste. ha2ha
whatever gets you through the night went to the top
it hit number one in states
.
.
also, u.s.a. is like 5 or 6 times the population of england so hitting number one here reflects alot more than uk ..... (yeah, i said it ha2ha)
Bullsh*t. John wrote and sang songs mostly about woe is me stuff. If he ever sang a song about what kind of an a**hole he was, I might side with you a bit.
John wasn`t like that.
Although I agree that John was a hypocrite in many, many, ways (especially the whole "Working Class Hero" thing- annoys the hell out of me as someone who is actually working class) I don't think he was a fake so much as a deeply conflicted and flawed human being. I think he tried to make up for his more a**hole-ish actions by writing these songs of peace and love.
I think John was human - sometimes an a**hole, sometimes a decent bloke. Sometimes a loving husband, then off on his lost weekend. A hands-on dad with Sean, an absent father for Julian.
On top of all this though, I think he was always fairly honest. His writing was openly personal, where someone like Paul would be a little more veiled with his lyrics, even if he was writing from a personal viewpoint. Ballad of John and Yoko is a good example of how honest John could be in his songs.
Britain. . . the most multi-cultural tolerant society on the planet.
It's now the most multi-cultural tolerant society on the planet and what you to refer to is quite a dated stereo-type created by Royalty and the Houses of Parliament. To be polite, to not burden your feelings on others has equal merit to letting your feelings out.
Anyway, you guys take things way to seriously sometimes.
Just wondering if the thread will be locked or the troll will be banned.
Although I agree that John was a hypocrite in many, many, ways (especially the whole "Working Class Hero" thing- annoys the hell out of me as someone who is actually working class) I don't think he was a fake so much as a deeply conflicted and flawed human being. I think he tried to make up for his more a**hole-ish actions by writing these songs of peace and love.
What baffles me is how an outsider, with access to so many opinions on the man, can agree with him.
we have fake working class people as rock troubadours, fake thugs as rappers and so on, lol.
.
.
I think this sums Lennon up perfectly. He probably considered himself a straight-up, honest guy who believed he was being sincere. But as we all know we are often the worst judges of our own characters. Like most of us he could probably rationalise his own a**hole behaviours. It's understandable how Lennon believed his own hype (don't we all?) What baffles me is how an outsider, with access to so many opinions and facts on the man, can agree with him.
The problem is that he was never Woking Class and if he was, it was by choice. That, and he sang the song as if HE struggled for years and years. It was almost as if it was personal and we know better.You're making assumptions here. Another assumption could be that maybe he was singing from a place of empathy. He might have been able to put himself into their shoes. Who know. Was he ever questioned about it?
You're making assumptions here. Another assumption could be that maybe he was singing from a place of empathy. He might have been able to put himself into their shoes. Who know. Was he ever questioned about it?
It doesn't really matter much, does it?
Only matters to me when people lay on the whole 'How sincere and from the heart' John was.
I'm only making assumptions from the stuff i've read. It was made pretty clear by authors and even his own band mates that Mimi was better off than most. Your kidding yourself if you think john was made to go work at a ripe young age to put food on the table. Its more like John could have laid on the couch eating sandwiches all day if he wished. The song wouldnt have been such a bitter pill if he would have sang to the Working Class instead of with them. Thats all i'm trying to say. I like the song, but it just seems like such a farce.
I don't think John was being a hypocrite when he wrote 'Working Class Hero'. Doesn't seem to me like he's singing about himself, he just gave his audience a song that most of them could relate to. And who ever said that pop songs have to be autobiographical? Brian Wilson didn't surf, Joni Mitchell didn't go to Woodstock, the guy from the Flower Pot Men has never been in San Francisco and I don't suppose Paul McCartney ever really had a crush on a French girl named Michelle. It doesn't really matter much, does it?
Only matters to me when people lay on the whole 'How sincere and from the heart' John was. I like John, but I still think he pulled the wool over a lot of peoples eyes. Thats all.
Mimi was better off only because she had a good house. Nothing else was better. She accommodated students, which is very modest income and what kind of income can it be? And what kind of life is it if you are obliged to live with unknown people? So again she made use of her house. And her husband didn`t earn good money. Besides he died early. John`s parents were definitely working class, his father - poor, his mother - the lower layers of society. And they remained so till their death. So John`s background was working class.ha2ha ha2ha BOMBOclaat ha2ha ha2ha
If he didin`t have to work at a factory or at a bar, (though I maybe wrong, but it seems to me he did work a little), it`s because he was a child then. Besides he started playing music and earned money in this way by concerts and playing at some family parties, which is also quite honorable, cause he did earn some money.
His song about the working class shows that he didn`t become a snob, a superior creature who can`t condescend to poor people. He says I am like you, I am an ordinary man. And I think there`s nothing in it for people from the working class to feel uneasy about or to consider it an insult. If they say - Oh, look at the guy! He has millions but he sings about us, then it just shows that they are jealous of his money, which is an improper thing to do. This is a revolutionary-charged kind of mentality. Don`t bother about other people`s money, bother about yours. And go and get it yourself! Like Lennon did, like the Beatles did! Sorry guys, I have nothing against their millions.
. . . If he was such a customer who pulled the wool over people`s eyes, he would have never said such a thing as We Are More Popular Than Jesus. He would have kept the outrageous thing to himself . . .ok, this ^^ one i'm not so sure about - because being outrageous is what got john lennon attention - and he most likely knew that about himself since he was small . . . to the point that he may have used it as his own personal social tool (just my opinion)
Mimi was better off only because she had a good house. Nothing else was better.
One minute you have him singing about giving peace a chance and power to the people while in the next context, he's also singing about how easy it is to imagine theres no heaven
If he didin`t have to work at a factory or at a bar, (though I maybe wrong, but it seems to me he did work a little), it`s because he was a child then. Besides he started playing music and earned money in this way by concerts and playing at some family parties, which is also quite honorable, cause he did earn some money.
.
If he was such a customer who pulled the wool over people`s eyes, he would have never said such a thing as We Are More Popular Than Jesus.
but can't it be said that john lennon had a hard childhood ?
doesn't the parental thing more than balance the (minor) discrepencies between the household wealths of john and the other beatles ?
. . . . if you wanna 'go there' and play the dead mom card
C'mon - the guy was at Art school, poncing about painting, writing and screwing girls. Hardly the little urchin forced to sing for a crust of bread to keep himself out of the mines.
He has always come across as some depressed, insecure, f***ed up person to me thats even a bit immature at times. He displayed that through his music and personality and I just cant give him the appreciation that so many others have.
I dont want to come across as seeming like I dislike John or anything like that becuase thats far from the truth. The guy has written some of the greatest music ever and I enjoy a lot of it. Its just when I see or hear people talking about him as being such a hero and important figure in their lives,,,,I just have to sit back and sigh.
okay. If that quote demonstrates his sincerity then we should dig out some more.
- the Beatles smoked dope in the Palace when they got their MBE's. The others said they didn't. A lie.
- the Beatles jammed with Elvis. See above
- he (JL) was a genius. Let's add an unsufferable conceipt.
- he saw a UFO.. Throw in fantasist.
Let's just say Lennon had a habit of saying whatever suited him at the time. I guess that's a kind of sincerity.
John was emotional. He was sometimes depressed, sometimes merry, but never only one thing. He was never insecure, he just had to be always on the move. He had to move somewhere, to get going, otherwise he got bored, like it happened to him with Cynthia. The only thing that I agree with and I wanted to write about it too is that he was rather immature, a big boy. Funny, humorous, naughty, vulnerable like a child, who sometimes needs somebody to turn to. But he was never a fake, never a hypocrite..
The girl went to study at the university due to her knowledge, there she was writing, reading and screwing guys.
As I recall, John's Aunt Mimi got him into the Art College by telling them she'd pay his tuition. So she paid his tuition to art college. In any case she certainly had more money than any of the other Beatle's parents - none of them could have remotely afforded to pay for college tuition and supplies. They all pretty much just had enough to make ends meet while living in public housing.
'Dad was a hypocrite. He could talk about peace and love to the world but he could never show it to his wife and son' - Julian Lennon
wait now.
what i read is that william pobjoy (the head master of john's high school) recommended that john go to art school when he saw what great talent john had -despite his poor grades.
and that pobjoy wrote john's recommendation because he knew people at the art school
.
.
john had the most affluent upbringing of the beatles according to one paul mccartney interview . .
and paul goes on to point out that john's upbringing had the most family turmoil and personal tragedy of the four beatles
.
.
He could never show it to them, because he wasn`t a hypocrite, as he didn`t love Cynthia, especially at this period of their relationship. Very simple to see it! He couldn` t pretend much he loved her. When he started living with Yoko he took Julian to their place every weekend, and Julian says it himself in the interview. Only when he left for NY they stopped seeing each other much. Unfortunately this is the fate of practically all children of divorced parents. Mothers stay with them, but fathers get new families and since they live separately they don`t see each other much. New children are born and a person can`t tear apart.
Besides I believe that it is Cynthia who imposed these ideas on Julian. Like most divorced abandoned wives.
what i read is that william pobjoy (the head master of john's high school) recommended that john go to art school when he saw what great talent john had -despite his poor grades.
and that pobjoy wrote john's recommendation because he knew people at the art school
john had the most affluent upbringing of the beatles according to one paul mccartney interview . .
and paul goes on to point out that john's upbringing had the most family turmoil and personal tragedy of the four beatles
As for his parents - you are making it like being "working class" is in the DNA. Doesn't matter what his mom and dad were, he did not live in a working class household(yes lower middle class).
Oh come on Jane. Your reaching now. Your even trying to exhibit John as a decent father to Julian because he took him during weekends when he was with Yoko. Geez. Your also trying to say that Cynthia was practically brainwashing Julian into believing bad things about John. He saw it for himself when John and Yoko was laying in Cynthias bed. The only thing non-hypocritical about John is that he never denied being a terrible father to Julian and a bastard husband to Cynthia. I'll give him credit for that.
All you need is love indeed.
Doesn't matter what Paul said in an interview, it's bald faced facts that John was the most affluent and it's actually mentioned in many biographies. Even if Paul had never mentioned it(and I didn't know he had until I read it here), doesn't change the fact that John had the most affluent upbringing. Personal tragedy has nothing to do with the financial state of his upbringing. No one is denying he had a right to sing about his mother. :)
As for his parents - you are making it like being "working class" is in the DNA. Doesn't matter what his mom and dad were, he did not live in a working class household(yes lower middle class). It's like saying if someone was adopted from poor parents, they are poor, even if though they grew up as the child of a doctor living in 4 bedroom, 3 bath house with a big yard in the suburbs.
anyone wanna talk about 'old brown shoe'?
I wanna! Give a hint! :)
Please, do you know a single divorced father who sees his children more often than at weekends? Less often - yes, but - more often? Certainly this separation and practice of not seeing one`s children is terrible but it is common.
Does Paul and Nancy Shevell take Beatrice to stay with them over the weekend?
There may be two reasons why John did it to Cynthia, I mean let her see him with Yoko.
One - he couldn`t tell the whole thing to Cynthia himself, couldn`t bring himself to do it and this incident meant an instant end to the relationship.
Second - he was indifferent to Cynthia, or she got on his nerves, or he even hated her.
Do you think that people have to stay together till the end in any case?
Sorry, you have failed here. Do you believe he didn`t have the right to sing about the working class? Oh, MG! You are censors! You are telling what people should sing about? And how people should feel and what people should feel? Then let`s ban piles of songs for the reason you insist on.
This person has the right to sing about that and that person doesn`t have the right to sing about this... We are watching them closely, no escape from us...
True. Lennon never said he was working class. I AM WORKING CLASS - never.
He said - A working class hero is something to be... If you want to be a hero just follow me.
A working class hero is something to be.
A working class hero is something to be.
If you want to be a hero well just follow me,
If you want to be a hero well just follow me.
Does Paul and Nancy Shevell take Beatrice to stay with them over the weekend?
So yeah, I'd say he IS saying he is working class.
If you want to be a hero well just follow me, after singing about how being a working class hero is something to be. Ergo, he is saying he is working class.
You people are being so picky about this. The guy grew up around it, his parents were working class, his friends were working class, he related to it. So what? Once upon a time it wasn't considered cool to be working class. I mean, who really cares about this stuff anymore? It's just another label. If he wrote a song that inspired or touched people, then why question what his motives were. It's art.
You people are being so picky about this. The guy grew up around it, his parents were working class, his friends were working class, he related to it. So what? Once upon a time it wasn't considered cool to be working class.
i'm just not getting 'rich kid' from this . . i mean . . it's his aunt's house not his or his parents.
^Jane, that's not what maywitch is suggesting. Sorry to drop into this discussion by the way.
Also NO kids(especially at that time) had money possessions of their own to any large degree, that's part of being a kid so no I wouldn't say it was like a "rich orphanage". It would have been no different if he'd lived with his parents, it would have been his parents stuff, not his, except for stuff that was given to him or that he bought when he had money, just like it was with Aunt Mimi. He had an aunt who was very strict and not supportive of his interests but who did love him, he had other relatives around who also loved him. Now, in no way does that take the place of his parents, there is no way that situation is NOT incredibly painful BUT he wasn't totally unloved and it was a heck of a lot better than an orphanage.
Yeah, its called the freakin law. I'm sure he got visitation rights for once a week and he took it. If he didnt, my god, we might see what kind of father John really was to Julian. You dont have to bother asking me or anybody else about it, Julian has written or said plenty about how it really was, and it wasnt a bed of roses as we all know.
John wasn`t totally unloved, he was simply unloved, he didn`t feel love, he didn`t have it
Ok, this is all speculation.
I don't think John's stepsisters really had an insight on John's life and feelings. They didn't meet more than a handful times I think. Just because Julia and Jackie felt that way, doesn't mean John felt the same.
It's not about having the right or not, but whether and how sincere he was about it. I think.
Ok, this is all speculation.
I don't think John's stepsisters really had an insight on John's life and feelings. They didn't meet more than a handful times I think. Just because Julia and Jackie felt that way, doesn't mean John felt the same.
You haven`t answered my question, Tkitna. Do you know such fathers? I don`t know even a single father who sees his children that often, once a week, at weekends.
Sorry, I can`t agree with you! You believe what outsiders say, different people, who even haven`t met John, but you don`t believe his sisters? This is strange!
You haven`t answered my question, Tkitna. Do you know such fathers? I don`t know even a single father who sees his children that often, once a week, at weekends. The reason why I mentioned Paul is that Paul surely doesn`t see Beatrice even once a week, Ok, they`ve taken Beatrice on holiday, and what? just once. It is not like living together. Besides, so did John, they took Julian too.
I absolutely do not blame Paul. It is the fate of all divorced parents and their children. I am all against it certainly.
Because we like talking about Beatle stuff? :)
If we didn't express opinions or make assumptions things would be a tad dull around here.
Once upon a time. It isn't considered cool anymore.
Depends on where you are in life.
You haven`t answered my question, Tkitna. Do you know such fathers? I don`t know even a single father who sees his children that often, once a week, at weekends. The reason why I mentioned Paul is that Paul surely doesn`t see Beatrice even once a week, Ok, they`ve taken Beatrice on holiday, and what? just once. It is not like living together. Besides, so did John, they took Julian too.
I absolutely do not blame Paul. It is the fate of all divorced parents and their children. I am all against it certainly.
Ok, this is all speculation. You don`t know what John felt. But his sisters know better. I believe them, I believe Julia: "Now I can see that there was far more to what John was doing than pure exhibitionism (or hypocricy as you say). The grief and loss he had suffered as a child had been transformed into a desperate craving for love and attention... But of course that didn`t do the trick, it didn`t make the ghosts of the past - his father`s loss, Mummy`s loss, Mimi`s coldness - go away. Perhaps every child who has been abandoned by their parents, struggles with the feeling unlovable. I did, Jackie did, and John did." John wasn`t totally unloved, he was simply unloved, he didn`t feel love, he didn`t have it
It's just that this discussion just seems to be going in circles now. It's great reading.i think that the debate of john's childhood wealth came from his 'rockstar complaints' in ballad of j&y . . which then morphed into was john working class which brought light to the song of the same name . . leading to jane's comment that john wasnt hypocritical which brought on the analysis of john's value as a parent . . .
I disagree. I never understood why when someone dies, his relatives are all of a sudden supposed to have absolute knowledge of what he would've thought or what he would've done. I grew up with my two brothers, I see my oldest brother every week and he's my best friend. Besides our parents and his wife I like to think that I know him better than anyone else does, but I could never speak for him cause I'm not him and I can't look into his mind.
I've never really stopped to consider it to be honest Jane, but what point are you trying to make? Are you trying to say that John really wasnt a bad father to Julian although julian and he himself admitted he was? Please, clue me in as to where your trying to go with this.
Jane, McCartney is a hands on father. He's with Beatrice more than you think. He doesn't have a nanny, he cooks for her, takes her to school. They guy isn't always busy.
As well John's sisters were speculating, based on their own feelings. And I actually don't doubt he felt many of those things, though it still speculation on her part. But let's face it teenage boy John did not spend time discussing his feelings with his much younger sisters.
Thank you for your question.
I am trying to say that we mustn`t blame John much for his not seeing Julian often. This is common practice unfortunately. If you don`t live with a child you get driven away from him/her. Opposite examples are just exceptions to the rule. And it seems the only thing everybody accuses John of is this one. But this is LIFE. It is very good that John admitted it, and it is natural that Julian felt deprived, any child does in such circumstances. I am not trying to support John here but I feel that it is a bit unfair to accuse him strongly of that. Everybody seems to come very hard on John in this question. Too hard. Besides I am sure he was getting back to Julian and we know that they were rediscovering a new relationship with each other. John`s death was very tragic in all respects, truly in all.
I don`t like the fact that Julian and Cynthia said not very good words about John.
First, Julian was getting closer to John at the time of the tragedy, and surely John did love Julian. A child can`t be so hard. Second, Cynthia proves to be a very revengeous person, she even ends her book JOHN with very unkind words. She could have written them somewhere in the book, in some other part of the book, but to write it in the very end is mean. The end should be positive. The person is dead. He was her husband. We must forgive.
Certainly growing together and being brothers-sisters they knew some things about each other, especially things relating to feelings, which we ARE discussing here. We are not discussing facts or actions now, we are discussing FEELINGS.My brothers and me very rarely discuss our feelings, to be honest. So once again, I don't think I could ever feel entitled to speak for them.
My brothers and me very rarely discuss our feelings, to be honest. So once again, I don't think I could ever feel entitled to speak for them.
I never say that John was an excellent father to Julian but to bring up this fact every time people speak about John is unfair.
people who look at John as some holy messiah or peace activist are wrong. They're fooled into thinking that way.there was another thread (of many) with this sentiment the other day and i responded that the john=saint perception was because of yoko and how she has . . . marketed . . john's legacy
john lennon's last song 'starting over' is kind of saying - "ive been a bad husband, lets take a vacation" - that's really not preachy at all. it's admitting to having flaws
that peace/imagine messaih stuff is largely yoko's rap
In the context of this discussion, its right on the money though. John didnt practice what he preached. Theres many other aspects too.
John was human and made mistakes like all of us do. The point I was trying to make though was that the people who look at John as some holy messiah or peace activist are wrong. They're fooled into thinking that way. Thats all.
and had a stack of playboy magazines at the foot of his bedPlayboy magazines? Not bad indeed! I approve of it! ;D
so next time some hackeysack playing unbathed idiot tries to tell you about martin luther king, the dali lama and john lennon . . . go to your stereo and crank out 'run for your life'i'd rather see you dead little girl than to be with another manha2ha ha2ha ha2ha
He wasn`t a messiah, but a lot of what he said, his ideas turned out to be ahead of his times. And that is very interesting!
Actually he was a peace activist at some time of his life and even was persecuted for that, not openly, but he was in the CIA files. Was it for nothing? Certainly not!
Actually he was a peace activist
If you want to talk about peace activists, why don't you talk about Joan Baez, she actually spent time in jail for encourageing people to burn their draft cards!
If you want to talk about peace activists, why don't you talk about Joan Baez, she actually spent time in jail for encourageing people to burn their draft cards!
Or Tom Morello of Rage Against The Machine/Audioslave, who personally organizes strikes and boycots for oppressed workers and has sued the US government on a few occasions.^^^
I quit, guys! I won`t write here any more..
Please, watch videos and see films, read books to judge.
What those people you mentioned did is nothing.
John was a singer, a poet, he wasn`t supposed to give his blood for anybody, and he didn`t intend to. He sang songs. This is his way of being involved.
If you don`t like him you will go on with this rhetoric of yours.
This is all very unfair. I can`t stand unfairness. Good luck to you!
In other words: he was a singer and a poet, not an activist.
why are these mutually exclusive of eachother?
he wasn`t supposed to give his blood for anybody, and he didn`t intend to. He sang songs.= He wasn't an activist, just a singer.
so hold on - do you know the definition of activist?
that is someone who takes vigorous action in support or opposition of a cause
writing a worldwide hit song for a cause or speaking about it on televison isn't an activity?
.
so what about authors who write about causes to affect public opinion - they aren't acitivists?
please don't even respond to this because the logic in your last comment was forced my brother ha2ha ha2ha
maybe jane was right and people just like to have at her ha2ha ha2ha
So would john’s legacy – his words, his message and even his music- have such a high place if he wasn’t physically handsome?
I notice through other threads that lennonista and jane are kind of enamored of john lennon in general.
Let’s be honest, one of the main reasons the beatles gained fame was because girls liked them and they were handsome.
John Lennon had a teeny bopper following.
Do people over emphasize john’s greatness because they just simply have a physical crush on him?
lennonista – I just like how you write ! that was a good read
number 2) joost, i really want to apologize for writing 'dont even respond'. i didn't mean it literally, more like an expression, but i know how it came off. sorry man.
number 1) jane, welcome back. my only advice to you would be to post and elongate this thread until it has reached a dozen pages haha
Let’s be honest, one of the main reasons the beatles gained fame was because girls liked them and they were handsome.
I loved John because he seemed like the coolest one, and all of my favorite Beatles songs were John's.
Believe it or not, there are lots of women out there who are like me... a man becomes attractive to me only after I dig who he is inside. First of all, I loved John's music... then I loved his message... and as I got to know more about him, I admired his profound intelligence, his quickness, his witty and silly humor, his edginess.
The people who haven't been bitten by the Lennon bug will never understand... he connected emotionally to a LOT of people. He was a rebel... (don't give me that "he was a millionaire" BS... he never conformed to ANYONE'S idea of what or who he should be... not even Yoko's) and we NEED rebels in our society. Nobody questions things intelligently anymore... no one knows how to push the envelope quite like John did. It's 30 years after his death and we're still talking about his actions, not just his music.
John's spirit was incredible. To paraphrase Ringo, "He would be the first one to jump in the pool, splash around, and be out drying off before other people even stuck their toes in the water." THAT's what I loved about John.
I'll defend John forever, but not blindly. I think it's weird how the pendulum has swung so much that Paul is now viewed as the virtuous one and everybody dumps on John (used to be the other way around, back in the day)... I want to keep BOTH sides in balance.
As did his art which was a soundtrack to so many peoples' lives.
It`s not just about being handsome looks do matter,ha2ha ha2ha ha2ha
women love with their ears. It is men who love with their eyes, It is for you that appearance counts so much . . .
A man should just have pleasant looks, but to us his personality is more important.
Well, if he has both then it is great.
Nyfan! What are you saying? It is not an argument, it is a well-known statement: Men love with their eyes, while women love with their ears. Don`t you have the same "proverb" in the USA? Now I wonder!! ???lol, oh ok- no i never heard that one
Remember some classical literature! This is a generalization, certainly, but every generalization is well-grounded.
Believe it or not, there are lots of women out there who are like me... a man becomes attractive to me only after I dig who he is inside.
I mean, he was worshipped and adored by millions. His personality was larger than life and his charisma was otherworldly – it was like he just showed up and hypnotized the whole world like a cult with everything he did
Just look how there are still so many forums/people who idolize this man and his life and his work
He was like a god walking among us humans
(I think I feel the pendulum swinging) . lol
I wonder if John would have gotten involved at all if he was not with Yoko?
Are you aware of the age of those posters though? Hmmmmm??? Hmmm??.
Probably not. But he would have done SOMEthing. Like he told Maureen Cleave in the famous "more popular than Jesus" interview: "You see there's something else I'm going to do; something I must do — only I don't know what it is."
I agree with that. He would have definitely got involved in something, I even think it would have been some kind of war protest by the way... I almost sure! :)
It only seems long because reading the posts gets rather tedious. HAHA ;D ;D ha2haha2ha ;D
I agree with that. He would have definitely got involved in something, I even think it would have been some kind of war protest by the way... I almost sure! :)maybe he meant like book writing, drawing or even acting. :D = he was young when he said it though so it may mean nothing
Jane - I can hear that turning into a fact in your head as we speak. :)ha2ha but then he would have been visited by 3 ghosts on xmas eve! ;D
He might have got involved in something.
If we're using qoutes, here's poltical bad boy in 1980
PLAYBOY: John, do you really need all those houses around the country?
LENNON: They're good business.
Lennon would have definately got involved in property market speculation that ultimately would contribute to the near collapse of the worldwide economic syastem, bringing poverty, hardship and distress to countless millions. I'm almost sure... :)
Slightly OT: Paul McCartney supports Make Poverty History and Adopt-A-Minefield. If John is a peace activist, can we call Paul a peace activist too?i was thinking that too/ i just wish paul hadnt written that freedom song after 9/11- it's kind of a right wing song . . . but what can you expect, unlike john, paul's background is working class ! ha2ha
Jane - I can hear that turning into a fact in your head as we speak. :)
He might have got involved in something.
If we're using qoutes, here's poltical bad boy in 1980
PLAYBOY: John, do you really need all those houses around the country?
LENNON: They're good business.
Lennon would have definately got involved in property market speculation that ultimately would contribute to the near collapse of the worldwide economic syastem, bringing poverty, hardship and distress to countless millions. I'm almost sure... :
Slightly OT: Paul McCartney supports Make Poverty History and Adopt-A-Minefield. If John is a peace activist, can we call Paul a peace activist too?
Awwww, that`s what it is! Jealousy! (can hear Billy Joel singing...)
Do you think I mind? ;D
It's not jealousy (I don't represent Paul...) and it's certainly not meant to be provocative. It was a 100% serious question.
BTW we are speaking about John`s song!Originally we were, but the last several pages this has mostly been a discussion about peace activism through music. So I don't see why I wouldn't be allowed to bring Paul into the discussion since we're not really discussing the song anymore, and this was never supposed to be a topic exclusively about John.
So, if somebody remembers Paul all of a sudden it makes one think... - jealousy!For the second and hopefully last time, that's nonsense. This is not a John vs. Paul popularity contest where I'm on Paul's team.
Though for a bit lesser causesI disagree. At least Paul has specific causes. John's message was always much too general and simplified to really change anything. If someone says "I want world peace!", my first thought is, "Great, where do you want to start?". John never really answered that question. Paul has campaigned against landmines and for the lowering of the debts of the Third World countries. Now those are actually good places to start. So if you ask me, Paul's thinking as an "activist" is ahead of John's.
which are not dangerous for the protester himself and his life like the protest against the Vietnam War was.I'm not buying that John's life actually was in danger because of his activism.
Is Paul included in the CIA or FBI files? NO. And John was. FACT.Yeah, and Michael Jackson was included in the Stasi (East German secret police) files. So what?
Joost! Please, don`t be so serious, friend! Of course, Macca is great! :).
But... why should we speak about him here where we speak about John? BTW we are speaking about John`s song! So, if somebody remembers Paul all of a sudden it makes one think... - jealousy! they want to prove that Paul is no worse... - BUT actually I don`t mind and agree that Paul is an activist! Though for a bit lesser causes, which are not dangerous for the protester himself and his life like the protest against the Vietnam War was. Is Paul included in the CIA or FBI files? NO. And John was. FACT.
Well,Nyfan, have I done my homework well?? 8) Please, answer!
Originally we were, but the last several pages this has mostly been a discussion about peace activism through music. So I don't see why I wouldn't be allowed to bring Paul into the discussion since we're not really discussing the song anymore, and this was never supposed to be a topic exclusively about John.
(Though I remember you didn`t allow me to speak when I posted in The Beach Boys - I don`t like them much - you - You are not supposed to speak! - I thought - Oh...)I'm really sorry to read that. I seriously can't remember that I ever (consciously) tried to make you feel like your imput wasn't wanted. If I somehow made that impression I sincerely apologize and I can assure you that I never wanted to exclude you from any discussion.
I enjoy reading your posts because they are very profound and well-thought over.Thank you, I appreciate that.
You are far from politicsHow do you know? I can assure you I'm not.
Nyfan, I am disappointed. :'( :'( :'(well jane, if you'd like to know how i really feel it's as follows -
doesn't anyone have anything twelve pagey to say ? :'(
No.
Agreed.