Yesterday, for the anniversary, it (Imagine... Xmas...) was overmediatized to the point of actually driving almost the whole household insane!
Our daughter (who's into vintage rock music and classic heavy metal) even asked me without any irony if he had ever written anything else as a solo artist!!
What I told her was that the PEACE THING probably represents in John's life and career - what - only 2-1/2 years maybe... BEFORE that he was highly outspoken and provocative as an artist - which is never peace-inducing to the mainstream if you think about it! - and always had an edge to him... Whether this was good or not in his life is beside the point, because we all know that this is what made him HIM and fed his artistic output the way every Beatle fan is fond of...
Now AFTER those 2-1/2 years he became an ACTIVIST behind every left-wing, even revolutionary, cause one could think of!! Then he became a drunken, frustrated husband who gets kicked out of night clubs for harassment... and AFAIAC, greatly creative again (Walls & Bridges)... Then went back home to raise his son and let his wife work 9 till 5 as businesswoman, buying cows and estates, never to be heard of marching for any cause - whether peaceful or revolutionary - again...
So the peace thing is but an episode. Highly mediatized to begin with, so I guess this is why the media is prone to recycle it so freely today...
My opinion on this present-day media exposure is this: if Yoko Ono was not re-releasing catalogue titles from her late husband as of now, I wonder if anyone at all in that telly or radio would even mention the anniversary... Who brought it on when it was TEN years? Why 25?...
BTW I do regret John (and I even love Imagine!), as a man and an artist.

Quoted from OldTop

[...] Who brought it on when it was TEN years? Why 25?... [...]

Mostly agree.
But where I live everyone "brought it on when it was TEN years": TV, radio and papers...

The thing that irritates me is that John always gets portrayed as some peace loving hippy with long hair looking a bit like Jesus doing weird stuff with alittle japanese lady. People (or the media) never say anything about that fact he was a raw rock and roller, swearing, drinking, fighting sarcastic wit womaniser... a complete DUDE.

"John Lennon? Oh wasnt he that weird hippy?" - cue out of tune - "Imagiiiinnne allll the peeeeeopleeeeee....peace man"

This is a refreshing viewpoint.
The trouble is that since Lennon was assassinated he's been deified and is now difficult to analyse without being accused of blasphemy.
He went on holiday with his manager at the birth of his first son, left his wife for his lover and then attacked HER for adultery,broke up the best group in the world, was kicked out by his second wife and later left May Pang in an emotional limbo.
I've just read in the book by the Beatles press officer that one day he grabbed Epstein by the balls in front of him in order to make Epstein look small.

Of course, the point is that, despite all this, we still appreciate Lennon the artist.

Yes. the world seems to see John as either a saint or a monster. I would like to think he occupied some kind of middle ground.
there was a debate on Radio 4 (serious radio) this am about whether John was simply a product of his environment - that northern working class men were expected to behave this way. As you can imagine, plenty of discussion both ways. Some people said yes, there was an undercurrant of paternal violence that ran through theirs and their friends families. Others, of course, dismissed it as rubbish.
For the record, my dad was a northern working class man, older than Lennon,  and not a violent bone in his body.

John once said "when we hit town we hit it hard, there was no fucking about. There are photos of me on my hands and knees outside brothels in amsterdam and things like that..."


I wonder what happened to them?

Quoted from OldTop

[...]Then went back home to raise his son and let his wife work 9 till 5 as businesswoman, buying cows and estates, never to be heard of marching for any cause - whether peaceful or revolutionary - again...

When Julian visited John in New York in the late '70's, he described that John was not really looking after Sean at all. I have always had a picture of a busy John Lennon doing the household and baking bread. According to Julian, John spent most of his time in his bedroom watching tv, while Sean was looked after by a nanny. Thinking of this, maybe the death and the story behind the death of Elvis Presley in 1977 made John realize he might go into the same direction if he didn't do anything about it...

In my other thread, I said remembering Lennon as a champion of peace and love was the BEST way we could remember him, not the ONLY way to remember him! But, since he is so timeless, people in general ought to be aware that he had two sides to his character.

Like John said himself, 'I'm human!'  
People  seem to forget  that at times.

After all, he said that he wanted to be rememberd as a pacifist more than as a musician (?) ... and the media remembered him as he wanted. A wish is a wish.  
People who want to know more have got no problems in finding info about him: false and true info.  

Quoted from Mendips

Like John said himself, 'I'm human!'  
People  seem to forget  that at times.

Very cool! Cheers Mendips.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, "It's A Duck" ther in lies your answer! You can't stage bed ins, tell people that the war is over if you want it to be and write songs about "Give Peace A Chance" and not be thought of as a card carrying peace loving hippy! You can't play both sides of the street and in John's latter years this is what he decided to dedicate his life to. The reason why all the writers cover this side of John's life is because we all know about the Beatles and this was the latter part of his life!

Quoted from kevin_b

there was a debate on Radio 4 (serious radio) this am about whether John was simply a product of his environment - that northern working class men were expected to behave this way. As you can imagine, plenty of discussion both ways. Some people said yes, there was an undercurrant of paternal violence that ran through theirs and their friends families. Others, of course, dismissed it as rubbish.
For the record, my dad was a northern working class man, older than Lennon,  and not a violent bone in his body.

Lennon was not brought up in a working class household.
He was brought up by middle-class Mimi and THAT was his problem.
Ringo was working class without a father.
Paul was working class and lost his mother.
George came from a big working class family who supported him all the way.

Lennon didn't get that support and was told to leave his working class friends at the door.
That's what he was rebelling against.

His rebellion could began when he found himself alone... meanwhile the rest of his friends and schoolmates had parents (one, at least) and his alive mother (till she wasn't no more) was living with her other family... leaving him at Mimi's house. I think he found this out quite early and thought he couldn't do anything right so ... he drove himself wildly.
Tho the way you see it it's ... polite.