Surely everyone has a "where were you?" moment when it comes to when they were informed that John Lennon had been murdered. I certainly have mine, and remember it quite vividly, as I was twelve at the time and already deep into my love affair with music. I will say that while I personally found and continue to find John Lennon's politics and beliefs utterly objectionable and terribly hypocritical, I also must admit that he was probably the author of more of my favorite Beatles songs than any other Beatle. My favorite Beatle song of all time is "I Am The Walrus", which could be the weirdest Beatles' song in their catalog, followed closely by "Day In A Life", and the mind-bending "Tomorrow Never Knows". (What can I say...I like weird music.)
I'm sure the encomiums will come rolling in about what a wonderful guy John Lennon was, how he was all about peace, non-violence, and social justice (etc., etc., blah...blah...blah...). I'm sure Rolling Stone, published by perhaps the worst rock star suck-up/sycophant on the planet, Jan Wenner, will give the full force of its journalistic hackery to promote, yet again, this meme. Those in the know are well aware that this was BS. John Lennon beat both his wives, abandoned his first son, and was capable of tremendous verbal cruelty. (Peter Brown, in probably the best book written on The Beatles (titled "The Love You Make"), recounted that when the gay manager of The Beatles, Brian Epstein, asked for suggestions about what the title of his autobiographical book should be whilst riding in an elevator with John Lennon and ghostwriter Derek Taylor, John Lennon suggested Epstein call his book "queer Jew". By the end of the elevator ride, Epstein had his face in his hands crying hysterically, while Lennon grinned sardonically at his cruel, verbal handiwork.) He was a habitual substance abuser, touted worldwide communism ("Imagine no possessions/heaven/countries, etc...etc...) whilst living in high luxury, and hung with ultra-violent Black Panther types. If the contradictions amongst all of us were and are extreme, those in Lennon were exponentially worse than even the most contradictory personalities. John Lennon spoke about peace, love, and caring, but he did very little of what he preached; if anything, Paul McCartney lived and practiced these concepts, whereas Lennon merely spoke of them.
In the end, and this is merely my opinion, I think Lennon was a dreamer because his reality was so terribly unhappy. A sad childhood such as Lennon's manifested itself in many ways: while he was a utopian, he also did everything in his power to make the lives of the people he loved more difficult. He wanted a better world, but more than anything, what he really wanted was peace of mind; he seemed to lash out and hurt those around him when he failed to get it. Whether or not he got it in the years preceding his demise is subject to debate. What Lennon represents to me is earnestness coupled with deep disappointment. Afflicted with the terrible sadness that a dysfunctional family life brings, he was both hopeful, yet discontent. He wanted a better world because his personal world was such a mess. Perhaps his politics, misguided though they were, were a projection of that sentiment.
Most of his solo stuff wasn't worth much, as I'm of the opinion that George Harrison put out, in all likelihood, the best post
Beatles solo album ("All Things Must Pass"). Some was good, some was not, none of it great. But his output within the context of The Beatles was stellar, particularly his later work with the group. It was cutting edge because he was cutting edge, both musically and psychologically. All things being equal, John Lennon was a creative giant.
10 comments:
"He's got a lot to answer for, that Lennon ...." ----- (said to me in the bar at BeatleFest 2000 by Len Garry, one of the original Quarrymen who was onstage with Lennon on July 6 1957 on the day that John met Paul)
....... otherwise, I don't even know where to begin in rebutting some of the vicious vitriol that you've just displayed here. Some truths, some half-truths, some culled from various books whether credible sources or not, some just out and out pure opinion on your part. A bit of a mish-mosh typed out rather quickly with no real forethought. I'll reserve my point-by-point rebuttal for another day when I have the time, as its rather late right now.
Was he a good husband? Not to Cythia and maybe not to Yoko. Was a he a good father? Not to Julian but probably to Sean. Look man, nobody's pefect. John was a man with flaws (sometimes deep ones) but he despite some of those flaws he managaed to create some of the best music of the late 20th Century and was a voice for peace. Yes, he was wealthy, he earned every penny (and probably more because he was ripped off a lot) and although he lived in opulence he also was notorious for for living amongst the people on the UWS. In fact, that may be what got him killed. As for his solo work, yes George had plenty more material when the Beatles broke up because he couldn't otherwise compete with Lennon/McCartney and his work got shelved.
Your post is way, way off. . .
As I see it, Spitfire, took nothing away from the value of Lennon's talent or contribution to the music world, by pointing out he had flaws.
Moses readily agrees yet states Spitfire's post is WAY OFF!
...how is that when you are saying the same thing in your post?(MOSES)
Spitfire clearly admires Lennon's talent-at the same time does NOT admire some of the things that made up the total man!
...at least, that is the way I read his post!
Junie
Smacking your wives around hardly qualifies one as a "man of peace". Taking up with Black Panthers and communist apologists in the early 70's (when the Maoist "Cultural Revolution" was claiming millions of lives in China) doesn't qualify one as a "man of peace". If Lennon was a "man of peace", then there's no such thing as a "man of peace". The point of the post is that it is a load of horsesh*t to affix the title "man of peace" to a person such as Lennon, as he could be extremely mean-spirited. As for psychologically damaging his first son, I think that disqualifies him outright. What Lennon wasn't was a "man of peace". What he WAS was a tremendous talent who was capable of creating amazingly innovative pop music....nothing more, nothing less. But the cannonization of Lennon by all these boomers is nothing short of a sham. I take him for what he was, and I love his music very much, but he conducted himself poorly. No amount of deification by the likes of Jann Wenner is going to change that.
You see Junie, that's why he's way off. . .
Moses said...
You see Junie, that's why he's way off. . .
10:02 AM <<<
Why, Moses?? What do you mean?
(Ya have to explain...
I've been accused of being Very 'blonde, at times!):)
JunieRose
Nobody ever claimed that John Lennon was a saint, far from it. He was born 'into violence' during an air-raid by the Nazi Luftwaffe on the industrial seaport city of Liverpool, by a pair of parents who were young and frisky with each other but not at all interested in marriage vows or raising a family. John's father abandoned him at age 5, his mother abandoned him a short time later ... and John was sent to live with his Aunt Mimi, who at least gave the young John some
semblence of a stable family upbringing. A few years later, after carousing around, his mother turned up again while John was in his teens, becoming his 'best friend' ... until she was killed in a pedestrian/motor vehicle accident, which John witnessed in horror. It was then that the teenaged John Lennon snapped completely, lashing out at anyone and everything for this rotton hand that life had dealt him. A traumatically tragic early life experience for ANYONE to have, to be sure!
What John did afterwards is nothing short of amazing ... not content to allow himself to become just another 'statistic of a broken upbringing', he channeled his energy and angst into artistic endeavors -- drawing cartoons, painting, and music ... specifically American Rock n Roll being the release which allowed him to come to terms with some of the demons which haunted him (and still did till the end of his life). John Lennon turned it all around, and in doing so was the seed and participant of a worldwide phenomenom which to this day still resonates very strongly in historical culture. (read: The Beatles!)
Was John Lennon a flawed individual? Yes. Was he nasty to some people close to him? Yep. Paranoid and cynical? Perhaps. Suspicious of those whom he percieved might seek to take advantage of him? Yep. Trusting of those who at first seemed benevolent, and then turned around and (figuratively) stabbed him in the back? Big Time! Substance abuser? Yep, until the last few years of his life when he became 'clean'.
(part one = some background --- part two up next)
(part two commencing :)
Now for a rebuttal of Spitfire's half-truths and riotous soap-box-ranting:
Spitfire sez: "Rolling Stone, published by perhaps the worst rock star suck-up/sycophant on the planet, Jan Wenner, will give the full force of its journalistic hackery to promote, yet again, this meme."
Moonlight sez: Aww shucks SpitF', whatever had become of Rolling Stone in latter years doesn't justify your ad-hominem attack on Jann Wenner or his work in founding Rolling Stone in the late 60's, which at the time and well into the 70's, was THE music newspaper/magazine to read, eclipsed perhaps by Melody Maker (which was British anyways) ... shrug
Spitfire sez: "John Lennon beat both his wives"
Moonlight sez: There is only one account of John 'beating' Cynthia that has ever been made public, by Cynthia herself, and it occurred in 1959 when John was 19 ... she was dancing with Stuart Sutcliffe at a party, and John became drunkenly jealous and hit her once, maybe twice. Prolly had a word or two to say to Stuart at the time too! But hay? How many drunkenly jealous 19 year olds do you know who hit their girlfriend ?? Probably plenty, it goes with the turf. As far as 'beating' his second wife, there are absolutely ZERO accounts of John ever 'beating' Yoko, and even if he did, Yoko is so protective of Lennon's legacy that she would never allow it to come out in public. So you're way off base on this contention!
Spitfire sez: "abandoned his first son, and was capable of tremendous verbal cruelty"
Moonlight sez: Unfortunately, this much is true ... somewhat .... poor Julian grew up without a Dad (while Dad was out 'conquering the world', as it were), but John did not exactly 'abandon' Julian as such as when John's Dad had abandoned him (sometimes life repeats itself in strange ways, ehhh ?) ... Julian and Cynthia were always taken care of by John's monetary stipends to them. "Abandoned" is a relative term here, if meaning 'emotionally abandoned' then the term fits, but otherwise in this case it doesn't.
Spitfire sez: (re: Peter Brown's account of Brian Epstein's autobiography title suggestion) "Lennon grinned sardonically at his cruel, verbal handiwork"
Moonlight sez: The account that you mention is in Brown's book, however your "while Lennon grinned sardonically at his cruel, verbal handiwork" is not. You made that up. Stop putting words into the authors mouth. Oh, and by the way, it was Neil Aspinall in the elevator, not Derek Taylor.
Spitfire sez: "He was a habitual substance abuser, touted worldwide communism ("Imagine no possessions/heaven/countries,etc...etc...) whilst living in high luxury, and hung with ultra-violent Black Panther types."
Moonlight sez: All true, unfortunately. However I'm willing to give the guy a pass on all that beacuse I don't think in his heart he really believed in it, considering that he was a confused emotionally scarred idealist (and drug addict) who had such a soft underbelly that all these leetches came to him and he became completely subservient to
resist any of it. He dumped them as soon as he realized that they were using him. "Power To The People" sounded pretty good at the time ... it was COOL too be a counter-culturalist back then, and a confused John latched onto it. More the pity for him and anyone else who believed it. My guess is that John Lennon was always a capitalist at heart, and that had he lived he might have come over to the *real* reality of humanity in a booming democracy loving America! (just one of my "what if" thingies :)
Spitfire sez: "John Lennon spoke about peace, love, and caring, but he did very little of what he preached; if anything, Paul McCartney lived and practiced these concepts, whereas Lennon merely spoke of them."
Moonlight sez: Completely wrong! John gave plenty to charity and benefits for children, even directly participating in many charitable events (unpaid, and largely unreported). John was a hurt person thruout his entire life (success aside), but when he was in a position to do so he gave both his heart and his money to philanthropic causes. Paul, on the other hand (and I don't want to start yet another "Paul vs John" thingie), has proven himself to be the real phony socialist and phony liberal. Paul is a pure capitalist, hands down. He knows the value of his market and squeezes every cent he can get out of it, even to the point of insisting that fans cannot bring their own cameras to take pictures of the 'Legendary Paul McCartney' in concert, however lousy most of those fan pictures may turn out ... Paul insisted that certain venues on this past tour would not serve any kind of meat to concert goers at the concession stands, and some of 'em even obliged this demand !! (not MSG, thank goodness!) Here we are, paying some $280 per tix for some crummy seat in some dreary hockey arena, and the 'Legendary Paul McCartney' tells ME that I can't even eat a hot-dog or sausage n peppers at the show??? GEEZ !!!
Many good points Moonlight, but you're a bit inconsistent when it comes to Paul. You criticize him for not being an idealist and then you get on his case for upholding his principles regarding veganism. . .
Post a Comment