Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jane]

Dear Tkitna and Joost! To tell you the truth, I`ve been thinking about you these days! Thank you for your kind words!       I think I can agree with what you are saying. I believe the point is that we differ in our methodological approaches to the problem. You think that an activist is someone who goes to the barricades and gives up their lives to the cause, or who has made a government increase the salary or the wages. If that`s the point, then you are right. Lennon didn`t fight in the streets and didn`t push a bill though Congress or Parliament.
But he took part in peace demonstrations, in demonstrations against the war in Vietnam, which is POLITICS, and because of that it is more DANGEROUS. He sang songs, he inspired people, he attracted attention of everybody, and of those in power. And it was in the 60s, just think of it! And he wasn`t a citizen! It is now ok to say that you are against the war in Iraq, but to say it in those times was very risky. He was in the CIA files and the files have been published now and you can see them. Noone gets into the CIA files for nothing, for being innocent, only for a very-very "good" reason. And they found John dangerous, his ACTIVITIES being against the current government policies of the times. His activities were more dangerous than those of any person fighting in the streets.
Besides, Julia Baird, John`s sister writes in her book (and she is a witness! a contemporary of those events): "Give Peace a Chance... this song said it all. We are all composed of the good, the bad and the peacemakers. Let`s give peace a chance. It was and is wonderful, and it has become one of the staples of peace politics. It was sung by half a million protesters at the November Peace March of 1969 at the Washington Monument, led by Pete Seeger. This was the largest anti-war rally to date... Total admiration swept everyone away, and I was no exception." "John was also an idealist. His hero was Gandhi, hence the peaceful protests. And he had the world`s eyes on him, so he was able to make his point - about world peace - very powerfully... At the same time there was a naivety about what John did that was touching. One thing I feel sure of... Mummy would have laughed, hugged him and encouraged him to go on being daring, brave and bold. She would have loved his creativity and his idealism. He brought politics and pop together..."
John made his point very powerfully.
Nyfan! I followed your appeal and did get to typing! Gimme more advice, Nyfan! I also think your arguments are very grounded.
In fact I am sure we all understand each other well and are able to accept each party`s piece of truth! Like Paul sings: We all stand together!...        (gotta listen to this song! don`t remember the words well!)

[nyfan(41)]

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

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. truthfully i enjoy your posts since i've read this forum

number 3) so it seems this thread is running several tracks
to take it to extremes, we have:

john was a spoiled child from an upper middle class background who painted himself as working class to be cool and seem like more the people's artist
vs
john was as salt of the earth as the next guy and had every birthright to represent lower economic classes in his music

we then move on to:

john was superficial in his political peace phase and it never amounted to anything more than hot air
vs
john was a pivitol agent of social change who's anti war beleifs were so strong he risked all to spread them

Ok, here’s a new spin
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?
--------------------------------------
Example – the week lady diana died the press was flooding with tributes to what a fantastic charitable giving saint this blonde iconic princess was . . and that same week mother theresa passed away and didn’t get a fraction of the attention/praise.
--------------------------------------
So would john’s legacy – his words, his message and even his music- have such a high place if he wasn’t physically handsome?
Admit it female john lennon fans . . isn’t your praise just rationalizing a type of teenage crush?.. no different than a 14 year old going on about how one of the jonas brothers donated money to PETA?

[I_Will]

So would john’s legacy – his words, his message and even his music- have such a high place if he wasn’t physically handsome?

Not nearly quite to the extent, but I do believe it still would have somewhat.

[lennonista]

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?

Okay... is that a serious question or are you just trying to elongate the thread?   Maybe both, so here's my response:

I have been a Lennonista since... well, as long as I can remember... since I was a kid in the '70s. I remember seeing him on the Mike Douglas Show and I thought, "How cool. That's the same smart-ass I saw in A Hard Day's Night." (But I probably didn't use the word "smart-ass." ) I loved John because he seemed like the coolest one, and all of my favorite Beatles songs were John's. (Mom and older sis loved "Let It Be" and "Hey Jude" but I went straight for "Come Together" and "Don't Let Me Down".) John just always made sense to me. Paul was the more "popular" one when I was a kid, but I didn't care.

I stuck with John through thick and thin in the '70s... I even used to defend Yoko. It was hard being a John fan in my era, because for most of my "teeny bopper" years, he was a "househusband." Did I think he was cute? Nah, I never thought about him that way... 'til waaaay later. (Being a mature woman in her 40s now, I look at his pix circa 1965 and think, "Damn, he was beautiful!" But that doesn't cloud my thinking... because I think they ALL looked beautiful!)

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. He became cute to me only after I knew I loved him.

I am very open-minded when it comes to John... I put things in perspective. I'm not in a personal relationship with him, so I don't give a damn if he was a jealous, irrational narcissist. (Just like I can love Paulie even though I think he's an uptight control-freak buzzkill.) John was also a fascinating person and artist who helped me make sense of the world in my formative, impressionable years.

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. I love what one former Quarry Man said about John: "He was a miserable guy... but I loved him!"

¡Viva la revolución lennonista!  

[nyfan(41)]

  yeah i am picking at straws to keep the thread going !  thanks for humoring me
ok, sondra- do you mean what I said was demeaning to lady diana or to female john lennon fans?
I thought the lady di analogy wasn’t too bad – she was kind of canonized when she died as an ultimate  humanitarian when it could be argued that some of her charity work involved just lending her fame to a cause (like has been said of JL) The greater loss to humanitarianism was probably mother theresa and – yes- her story was kind of lost among the ……. news media frenzy
If lady di was fat or old or ugly or black I really don’t think that the same level of attention would have been there
 
As to what you say about looks helping but substance having to be there – I guess that hits the nail on the head.  I mean . . the substance is what makes people attractive too. I may have a partial point though. Some people arguing about john’s ideals may also be biased towards him due to attraction.
Case in point – you said most ADULTS look deeper, but I’ve read more than once that physical appearance plays a role in who wins the presidential election . . and all the voters are over 18 !!

lennonista – I just like how you write ! that was a good read

i will - thanks for the honest answer ! 

 

[lennonista]

lennonista – I just like how you write ! that was a good read

lol ~ Thanks for humoring me...

[Joost]

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.

No problem.

[Jane]

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 can`t get the magic 12? Why not the horrible 13? Or the sweet 16? 
It`s not just about being handsome. Certainly, in music, pop and rock looks do matter, but in John`s case if he hadn`t been famous at the time of his peace period he wouldn`t have got all the attention he did get from the public and the authorities, and the fans even if had been a 100 times as handsome as he was. He used his position, his fame for a good cause, which is creditable.
Besides, Nyfan, you have forgotten that women love with their ears. It is men who love with their eyes. It is for you that the appearance counts so much, while for us it is mostly desirable. A man should just have pleasant looks, but to us his personality is more important. Well, if he has both then it is great.

[Jane]

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.

I agree with you! And remember that he was an idealist as Julia writes. I agree with her characteristic too.

[Jane]

As did his art which was a soundtrack to so many peoples' lives.

Because John`s songs are very sincere (even if you do not admit that he was sincere, his songs still ARE). I have an acquaintance who says that his songs helped her to survive, to get through a very hard period in her life.

[nyfan(41)]

It`s not just about being handsome                looks do matter,
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.

 ok, what would you know about my ears and eyes lol
but seriously, you're argument would be a whole lot more convincing if we weren't presently surrounded by two dozen threads all 50 pages with titles like - "dreamy photos of the beatles yawning" - lol 

i dont really believe the point i made though, you see, i'm a huge beatles fan
Ok tho, let me be honest and face facts here . . I was just trying to provoke some posting and stretch the thread
The man obviously had an appeal beyond those shallow lines – duh, I know that lol
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
ANYONE WHO SAYS ONE WORD AGAINST THIS AMAZING MAN NEEDS THEIR HEAD EXAMINED –
.
.
.
.
Mickey dolenz was but a cheap imitation of our inspired savior ! !
(ok, I’m like not even kidding is the sad part lol)

[nyfan(41)]

well, kinda kidding

[Jane]

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!!   
Remember some classical literature! This is a generalization, certainly, but every generalization is well-grounded.

[nyfan(41)]

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!!   
Remember some classical literature! This is a generalization, certainly, but every generalization is well-grounded.

lol, oh ok- no i never heard that one
anyway, the generalizations spice up the thread . like well-grounded pepper 

[emmi_luvs_beatles]

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 completely agree. Honestly, when I first saw a picture of the Beatles (1963), I thought "That one looks 12!" (Paul) and so I thought "There's no way I'm liking them." Hahahahahahah soooo naive.

[JimmyMcCullochFan]

I wonder if John would have gotten involved at all if he was not with Yoko?

[lennonista]

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

Now you're making some sense... I can see Aunt Mimi must have given you a good talking-to! 

But we Lennonistas don't need everyone on our side. After all, the thing about being cool is that not everyone gets it...  if they did, then it wouldn't be cool anymore.  And we don't need everyone kissing John's very cute and round a$$... just stop tearing him apart and being so damn quick to point out his myriad flaws... I don't see the Let It Be thread deteriorating into a multi-page posting of how Paul was a racist because he called Yoko a "Jap tart" or what a jerk he was because he dumped his girlfriend like the day after she had a miscarriage or... I could go on, but I won't. I think we're getting close to the 12-page target, anyway.

I wonder if John would have gotten involved at all if he was not with Yoko?

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."

[nyfan(41)]

Are you aware of the age of those posters though? Hmmmmm??? Hmmm??

.
no sondra, i really don't know who posts over there.
. . . but apparently you are familiar enough with the inside of those threads to tell me who posts in them-
 . . hey, what's the wallpaper like over there?  (ducks)
.
(yes i kno, you're a moderator and compelled by duty to weather the immaturity of such threads HAHA  )
.
.
ok seriously though, since you're a mod - do you know if all thread pages are the same length? - because this is like the longest 10th page ever 

[nyfan(41)]

YIPEE 
"owr freds go up to eleven"

[Jane]

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!