John Lennon...

[jannieC]

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

I've always kind of assumed that him dying had much more to do with him being such a legend than any of his music. Then again, I am not that familiar with much of his music. But maybe that's why I always figured the music wasn't necessarily that huge a part of it - if it was so great I would have heard more of it. It's kind of like Kurt Cobain. His songs weren't that groundbreakingly amazing, at least not enough to make him such a legend. I guess both of them contributed a lot to the world either outside of music, or just more generally to the state of music. Death always makes an easy path to fame anyway. Consider this - was John Lennon such a legend when he was alive? Maybe that's sacreligious, considering the thread I'm in, but I assume the answer is 'no'.

I respectfully disagree with this. His music/songwriting is beyond amazing. John Lennon actually was a bit of a legend before he died. Obviously his tragic death shoved him further into the spotlight, but that death doesn't change the depth and genius of his music.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

I've always kind of assumed that him dying had much more to do with him being such a legend than any of his music. Then again, I am not that familiar with much of his music. But maybe that's why I always figured the music wasn't necessarily that huge a part of it - if it was so great I would have heard more of it. It's kind of like Kurt Cobain. His songs weren't that groundbreakingly amazing, at least not enough to make him such a legend. I guess both of them contributed a lot to the world either outside of music, or just more generally to the state of music. Death always makes an easy path to fame anyway. Consider this - was John Lennon such a legend when he was alive? Maybe that's sacreligious, considering the thread I'm in, but I assume the answer is 'no'.

Well, as always, that question requires a bit more than a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Of course John was something of a "legend" thanks to his work with the Beatles and, to a lesser extent, his first couple of solo albums well before his death. I think it was really during the 70s that John fully emerged as the preferred Beatle among "cool" and "discerning" music fans - the sarcastic, intellectual, philosophical, political hipster-artist in contrast to Paul's sappy mainstream pop idol. Obviously that distinction started to emerge in 60s as well, but it really cemented itself in the early 70s, as their first few solo albums were very different from each other. John was the genius, Paul was... the cute one.

So he had that going for him. But at the same time, his solo stuff later on the 70s was generally regarded to be pretty crappy, so the attitude started to emerge that, "Well, okay, he was great with the Beatles, but that's it, he hit his peak long ago, now he's just spinning his wheels." I think also had some personal issues going on during that time that kind of contributed to the "stick a fork in him, he's done" attitude.

But by 1980 he was kind of getting his **** together, and he recorded Double Fantasy, which I think was being billed as something of a "comeback" album even before it was released. So there was already this kind of buzz in the air that, "Oh, John recorded this new album that's supposed to be really great, he's back in top form," and it got some good reviews (though it got some bad ones as well), and then he's killed just a couple of weeks after it's released. And then of course there's the Rolling Stone cover.

So it's a complex situation, as most situations in life are, and of course we can never know what might have happened had he never been shot, or merely been wounded. But it's certainly not unfair to claim that his sudden, tragic, unexpected death played a big part in his becoming as huge of a legendary figure as he has.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Lux

McCartney is a living legend

According to whom?

[Nico]

I don't agree with those who say that his death has made him into more than he was, or those who seem to think his solo music wasn't that great. I respect your right to your opinion, but I completely disagree.

First of all, John was absolutely a legend before his death. He and the rest of the Beatles had taken over the world, dominated the charts, and set more records than any other band previously or since. He was a remarkable songwriter who could project his feelings so powerfully into music. On top of all this, John was one of the few artists out there who cared enough to take bold stances on issues that were very controversial. He spoke his mind regardless of the consequences, and that made him an iconoclast...and yet, he spoke his mind so well that many people could understand and relate to him on so many levels- almost vicariously, actually- and that made him an icon.

I personally LOVE his solo music. Albeit, that sound stuff he did at the very start with Yoko 'aint my bag...but the rest? Love it. His box set proved to me, at a time when I was just beginning to understand his music and life together, how amazing he was. "Plastic Ono Band" is my favorite album of all time, and I have an incredibly varied musical collection. It was bold, raw, full of passion and energy and underlying sensitivity...and it was cathartic and beautiful all at the same time. I have never heard anything like it in my life. I love "Imagine", I love "Mind Games", I love "Walls and Bridges"...those albums are absolutely stunning to me. And his rock and roll cover album kicks..."Double Fantasy"? Gorgeous. And Yoko's stuff on it as well.

I think some of the political stuff, like "Sometime in New York City" has to be taken into context...it was very topical, very "for its time." It made a huge impact on people who were affected by those issues, and John had a lot of courage to do things like that with his career. He could have chosen an easier route, just make nice songs with a good beat, but he decided to make himself and his art more complicated...and that isn't for everyone. But I love him for it.

I HATE when people think that, because John was killed, he suddenly became the Beatle everyone chose to love. Not true. My first Beatle love was George. I was 10, and he was IT for me. I could have cared less about John, despite the fact his songs were always my favorite. But it took time for me to realize just how incredible John was. It wasn't his death or his "martyrism" that made him so cool, and it wasn't Imagine. He had so much more to him that no simple argument could possibly uncover.

I think John once said that he measured himself as an artist by taking everything he did into perspective, like his work in the Beatles, with Yoko, solo, with Bowie or Nilsson, or Elton John...everything. And leave nothing out. Just one continual spectrum to analyze- like a musical autobiography. He's all there.

Ok, that was long. Sorry.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

And Kurt Cobain?

As with Lennon, there's no real simple answer. Nirvana was one of the seminal breakthrough bands of the alternative rock movement well before Kurt's death. Their most popular and allegedly best song was "Smells Like Teen Spirit," from Nevermind, which was released in 1991, nearly three years before Kurt's death, and they were still very popular at the time he died. If he had lived, would they have remained popular and relevant? Would they have known when to call it quits? Or would they have tarnished their legacy by releasing a bunch of crap? We don't know, since they never got the chance.

So, short answer: Nirvana were already considered a very important band in 1994, but Kurt's death (and the circumstances surrounding it) ensured the immediate appropriation of their music as the symbol of the 90s alternative movement. That might not have happened to such an extent had Kurt lived.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Lux

Not me but he's pretty much been admitted into that collection of people by the famous "they".

Are you sure? McCartney's a big concert draw, but his records haven't sold that well for years, and he's been largely written off by a lot of critics (although that has changed a little bit with his new album).

[jannieC]

I don't understand how anyone can not be familiar with his music.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by jannieC

I don't understand how anyone can not be familiar with his music.

True.

I mean isn't Beatles music, like, the common language?

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Lux

I think each of The Beatles were admitted to that catergory and it would have to be some quite dramatic turn-around for them to be disqualified.

I think we're just thinking of this concept in different ways. Certainly all four members of the Beatles have always been and will always be considered legendary... as members of the Beatles. As far their individual careers since then, though, there's definitely no legend guarantee there. As I mentioned, Paul has been written off many times over for foisting mediocre-or-worse love songs on the world for the past three decades. And I'm not sure anyone's really given a **** about Ringo since 1970.

And the same is true for Lennon. He got very mixed reviews throughout a lot of the 70s, and there was no guarantee he would always remain an iconic figure.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Nico

True.

I mean isn't Beatles music, like, the common language?

I'm pretty sure BoBo just meant his solo work.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

I'm pretty sure BoBo just meant his solo work.

I think BoBo should pick up John's "Working Class Hero: the Definitive Lennon" compilation. I am sure he will be able to recognize more than a few of those songs.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

I'm thinking Bobo doesn't realize that you're like, one of the coolest people to look to for music recommendations.

J'taime

[johndoe]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Nothing you can sing that isn't sung?

Wow. How did I miss that? lol

[Jyqm]

Oh Yoko...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176868,00.html

Yoko Has Her Way With Lennon's Record
Monday, November 28, 2005
By Roger Friedman

For a genius, Yoko Ono doesn’t seem very smart.

The anniversary edition of John Lennon’s hit 1974 album, "Walls and Bridges," has just come out — but with a lot of changes.

The principal difference is a new cover: Ono has tossed aside the original — a drawing by Lennon from when he was 11 years old — and replaced it with a Bob Gruen photograph of Lennon wearing four pairs of sunglasses that used to be in the album’s liner notes.

Of course, a Gruen photograph is always a good thing. His new coffee table book, “John Lennon: The New York Years,” is a must-have for any Beatle fan (it’s certainly more important than the recent bio that was published and is said to be full of inaccuracies).

But it was Lennon who selected his childhood drawing for that cover. How, one wonders, could Ono have conceived of making such a change?

There are plenty of other “updates” on the newly remastered “Walls and Bridges." Fans have noticed that Ono lists herself as “producer” of the reissue album, her name in all capital letters. The original credits read: “Produced and Arranged by John Lennon With the Plastic Ono Nuclear Band/Little Big Horns and the Philharmanic Orchestrange.”

Ono also has replaced the Apple Records label on the original disc with a version of a customized label used on the 1972 album "Sometime in New York City." That label, now adorning "Walls and Bridges," has two pictures of Lennon, two of Ono and one of them superimposed over each other in between the pairs to make one person.

“The difference,” one fan writes, “is that when they used this on 'Sometime in New York City,' John morphed into Yoko. Now Yoko becomes John!”

Insiders have pointed out the ridiculousness of all this Ono-izing of "Walls and Bridges" since Lennon wasn’t living with Ono when he made the album. He was with his girlfriend, May Pang, a fact that is thoroughly documented.

Fans have also noticed an audio change, as well. At the tail end of “Surprise, Surprise (Sweet Bird of Paradox),” a rocking shuffle Lennon wrote for Pang, there’s a new little bit of singing as the song trails off.

It sounds like Lennon, or maybe Ono herself, is chanting “Yo-ko” very softly in a falsetto after repeating the chorus, “I love, love her.” Now it seems like it’s Ono and not Pang he loves, which was not the case at that time. Shades of the old days when the Beatles added hidden words to their songs.

Of course, the main reason for Ono’s march to revisionist history is the upcoming Dec. 8-9 25th anniversary of Lennon’s murder. First came the ill-fated Broadway musical, which closed after a short run. Now the album has been altered.

"Walls and Bridges" was Lennon’s best-selling solo record released while he was alive. It contained two top-10 hits, “Whatever Gets You Thru the Night” and “No. 9 Dream.” Ironically, the latter features whispered vocals by Pang, something Ono could not tamper with unless she wanted a huge uproar. “No. 9 Dream” is one of Lennon’s most played songs to this day.

Nevertheless, "Walls and Bridges" remains an unusual and often extraordinary collection of songs that has been eclipsed over the years by “Imagine” and “Double Fantasy.”

Lennon experiments with Philly soul (“Bless You”), gives a nod to the two big stars of the day — Stevie Wonder (“What You Got”) and Elton John (“Old Dirt Road”) — and takes yet another nasty swipe at former pal Paul McCartney (“Steel and Glass”).

As for Ono, an article in yesterday’s Japan Times doesn’t help much to restore her image. Writer Philip Basor points out that she’s shilled for a number of companies by appearing in Japanese TV commercials that feature Lennon songs.

The worst, I should think, is for Gibraltar Life Insurance. Lennon and Ono were married in Gibraltar, Spain — a point made in the Beatles song “The Ballad of John and Yoko.” The Lennon song “Woman” plays in the Gibraltar ad.

In a couple of days, Ono will compound her problems when she releases a book called “Memories of John.” There are interviews with 73 different people, many of whom did not know Lennon.

There are no interviews with the ex-Beatles, their wives, Lennon’s first wife, Cynthia, or son, Julian. John Fogerty says in the book, “I never met John, but I always felt that I knew him.” Yikes! There are also statements from such unlikely contributors as the Bangles’ Vicki Petersen, Bono, Alicia Keys, Steve Earle, Jello Biafra and Carlos Santana.

I don’t get it. Ono is obviously a brilliant woman and has been a great mother. All of these things — the musical, the book, the reissued albums — gave her an opportunity to show her generosity, wisdom and unselfishness. She seems to have passed on them all and taken a road that Lennon himself, even though he liked to put people on, would not have approved of.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

Ha ha. People never liked her, right? It's nice to see people stubbornly be who they really are and not change themselves just to please others. She should take on Beatles records next.

I don't think Yoko should change who she is just to please others. I think she should change who she is because who she is is a heinous, selfish bitch.

Last year she was all over Paul McCartney for changing the Beatles songwriting credits on his live DVD to "McCartney/Lennon" because she said it showed a lack of respect to John and their agreement. Then she goes and messes around with one of the guy's most personal albums to give herself more credit? Bitch is shameless.