The John Lennon Peace, Love, and Appreciation Thread

[the captain]

Age means a lot when it comes to forming opinions. I apologize if this unsettles you.

I think it factors in, but it's certainly not enough to define a person or dismiss an opinion. I say that as someone who a) used to be the young guy with strong opinions in everything (god, I miss being the young guy...), and b) recognizing as I get older that old people are actually just as stupid as young ones. Just older.

That said, I agree with your point, in a way. Experience does change one's outlook. Not always for the better, not always for the worse. But it affects things.

[the captain]

"I use to be cruel to my woman I beat here and kept her apart from the things that she loved.
Man I was mean, but I'm changing my scene and I'm doing the best that I can."

Yep - the fact is that we know much of the brutal truths about John because John himself told us about them.

Pretty sure those are Paul lyrics.

That would be incorrect. Most are in agreement that Lennon wrote that part of Getting Better.

Those are great lyrics, though, whoever wrote them.

[pixletwin]

"I use to be cruel to my woman I beat here and kept her apart from the things that she loved.
Man I was mean, but I'm changing my scene and I'm doing the best that I can."

Yep - the fact is that we know much of the brutal truths about John because John himself told us about them.

Pretty sure those are Paul lyrics.

You would be wrong. 100%

[Gabo]

Lennon was a brilliant, brilliant melodist. Better than Wilson in that regard because his songs actually feel like they have a bit more meat to them. They are super-melodic but also rock, are also anthemic, are also bittersweet. And poetic.

Most of Wilson's music is pure ear candy. Lennon's music went far above that. Not just because his lyrics were great. He just wrote really interesting music.

He was also versatile as f***. He wrote "Good Night"!

[Moon Dawg]

He beat his wife.
That's a strong case for being an asshole.

 How do you know this? From Albert Goldman??

[alf wiedersehen]

I regret ever posting here

[the captain]

Lennon was a brilliant, brilliant melodist. Better than Wilson in that regard because his songs actually feel like they have a bit more meat to them. They are super-melodic but also rock, are also anthemic, are also bittersweet. And poetic.

Most of Wilson's music is pure ear candy. Lennon's music went far above that. Not just because his lyrics were great. He just wrote really interesting music.

He was also versatile as f***. He wrote "Good Night"!

If I'm remembering our previous interactions correctly (especially regarding of Montreal favorites), I think you and I have a bizarre musical appreciation thing going on where despite liking a lot of the same bands or people in general, it seems we like the exact opposite things from them. Weird and fun. I could be wrong. I could be drunk. (I am drunk.)

[Moon Dawg]

I regret ever posting here

  I second that.  

[pixletwin]

I regret ever posting here

This is where you are showing your age.

Don't be offended. It's not my intent. But it is a well known fact that Lennon wrote those lyrics. Also it's a discussion of opposing viewpoints. It's that dissonance which creates a good discussion. So don't let it get under your skin.

I do like your new name. It would be cooler and funnier if "Wrong" was lower case, like so: "wrong. %100"

[the captain]

Could be that multiple people posting the same correction comes across as piling on. (In reality a lot of people just don't read all the previous posts, and some people--not you, pixeltwin!--are fucking dicks who like making sure they actually do pile on in their unending shows of wisdom. "It was Paul." "It was Paul!" "Paul wrote that!" "I was gonna say, that was Paul!")

Looks like the lowercase name suggestion took hold.

[alf wiedersehen]

Could be that multiple people posting the same correction comes across as piling on. (In reality a lot of people just don't read all the previous posts, and some people--not you, pixeltwin!--are fucking dicks who like making sure they actually do pile on in their unending shows of wisdom. "It was Paul." "It was Paul!" "Paul wrote that!" "I was gonna say, that was Paul!")

Looks like the lowercase name suggestion took hold.

Yeah, I was sort of getting it from all angles.

I tried out the lowercase name, but I think I prefer the capital.

On a related note, my Criterion blu-ray of A Hard Day's Night arrived today.
Haven't seen it yet, so I am looking forward to it.

[Gabo]

I really dislike A Hard Day's Night the film for some reason

[bluesno1fann]

"I use to be cruel to my woman I beat here and kept her apart from the things that she loved.
Man I was mean, but I'm changing my scene and I'm doing the best that I can."

I think the cruelest story about John that really effected how I looked at him was when Julian was playing with a friend when John had invited them for a visit in sometime in 1979. Julian was quite a sensitive child and it took a lot for him to come out of his shell (especially if John was around).

Anyways, Julian and others were making Mickey Mouse pancakes, having fun and Julian giggled. For whatever reason, John slammed into Julian verbally telling him he had horrible laugh and he never wanted to hear him laugh like that again. Apparently even after that, John continued to verbally abuse him until Julian retreated to his bedroom in tears. Years later he said he took him a long time to laugh out loud without hearing those words in his head.

So yeah, Lennon could be a really terrible person. Nothing particularly new there.

Yeah, that story disgusted me more than any other by Lennon. Except that I though it happened around 1975. Oh well...
This article was quite interesting:
http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/

But anyway, on a lighter note...
Anyone else don't mind the album Sometime In New York City?

[rogerlancelot]

"I use to be cruel to my woman I beat here and kept her apart from the things that she loved.
Man I was mean, but I'm changing my scene and I'm doing the best that I can."

I think the cruelest story about John that really effected how I looked at him was when Julian was playing with a friend when John had invited them for a visit in sometime in 1979. Julian was quite a sensitive child and it took a lot for him to come out of his shell (especially if John was around).

Anyways, Julian and others were making Mickey Mouse pancakes, having fun and Julian giggled. For whatever reason, John slammed into Julian verbally telling him he had horrible laugh and he never wanted to hear him laugh like that again. Apparently even after that, John continued to verbally abuse him until Julian retreated to his bedroom in tears. Years later he said he took him a long time to laugh out loud without hearing those words in his head.

So yeah, Lennon could be a really terrible person. Nothing particularly new there.

Yeah, that story disgusted me more than any other by Lennon. Except that I though it happened around 1975. Oh well...
This article was quite interesting:
http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/

But anyway, on a lighter note...
Anyone else don't mind the album Sometime In New York City?

Sounds like mud to me. Phil Spector was losing his touch there. I used to listen to the bonus live lp more than the studio album. I really do love the next lp Mind Games much more, especially "Out Of The Blue" (aka "Out The Blue") with the opening finger picking chord progression and melody on top. One of his finest moments.

[Mr. Verlander]

To be fair, all of The Beatles could be assholes. I admit, they're my favorite band, although I don't put them up on pedestals, which ends up being the problem with most fans. John Lennon once said something like 'You have to be a bastard to make it, and The Beatles were the four biggest bastards on earth'. Which may be a bit extreme, although you get the point. I mean hell, after they broke up, George Harrison got caught in bed with Ringo's wife Maureen-while he was still married to Patti Boyd. So yeah, they all could be dicks.

[the captain]

Coincidentally I came across the below James Loeffler's review of Michael Haas's "Forbidden Music: The Jewish Composers Banned by the Nazis" as found in at The New Republic website.

We reflexively resist acknowledging how much great music comes from bad men. Even when we do confront the moral failings and petty biases of great composers, our instinct is to quarantine the music itself. For, of all the arts, music most retains its hallowed aura of transcendence. In the pure realm of abstract sound, we often imagine, particularities and prejudices fall away to reveal a universal human condition.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118331/forbidden-music-michael-haas-reviewed-james-loeffler

The specific topic of the review (and apparently book) is anti-Semitism in music and among Germans in particular in the latter portion of the 1800s through WWII. But the above quote seemed relevant to some of what has been said in this thread. The question as I understand it posed in this review is, can music exist outside of race, nationality, politics, etc., or is it intrinsically linked (and therefore can the composer himself be separated from his work)? The separation is explained in that same review here:

For Wagner’s ideas coincided with the mid-nineteenth-century split of German music into two factions. The Old School (defined stylistically, not chronologically) centered on Brahms and his followers. Though by no means artistic conservatives, they favored a Mendelssohnian ideal of music as an autonomous realm of beauty. Their rivals in the New German School of Wagner and Liszt (who also authored an anti-Semitic tract of his own) argued for the ideal of nationalism. Music’s fate was to serve as a vessel for political ideas, cultural forms, and social functions.

[Amanda Hart]

If you choose to dislike a creation just because the creator acts like a dick, you would like no music and very, very little comedy.

Lennon's solo stuff gets to be really hit or miss for me, but his talent for both melody and lyrics are undeniable.

[alf wiedersehen]

If you guys are fans of melodies, you should really check out this guy named Paul McCartney.

[pixletwin]

If you choose to dislike a creation just because the creator acts like a dick, you would like no music and very, very little comedy.

Lennon's solo stuff gets to be really hit or miss for me, but his talent for both melody and lyrics are undeniable.

My opinion: Lennon was a great songwriter throughout the 70's. His problem was that he was a terrible producer. TER-RIB-BLE. 
Even his albums that have a Phil Spector credit were mostly produced by him.

[the captain]

If you guys are fans of melodies, you should really check out this guy named Paul McCartney.

Paul who?

Actually as would surprise nobody who has heard my songs or knows my taste, Paul is far and away my choice for greatest Beatle.

[Gertie J.]

pauls songs lack uniqueness that johns have. he has more filler than anyone whose name is not rod stewart.

[alf wiedersehen]

If you guys are fans of melodies, you should really check out this guy named Paul McCartney.

Paul who?

Actually as would surprise nobody who has heard my songs or knows my taste, Paul is far and away my choice for greatest Beatle.

Mine, too.
When first becoming a Beatles fan, I for some reason decided that John Lennon was my favorite. However, when I started to listen to more and more of their music and became an enormous fan, my favorite (and choice for best) Beatle turned into Paul McCartney. George is #2.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[the captain]

pauls songs lack uniqueness that johns have. he has more filler than anyone whose name is not rod stewart.

I'd say the exact opposite on both counts.

[Gabo]

I like Lennon more than McCartney because:

1. I'd rather hear his voice than McCartney's. I just like it more.
2. I like his peace songs and anthems a lot. He was definitely a better writer of "singles" than McCartney. McCartney's singles were often his most throwaway work (Lady Madonna, Hello Goodbye, etc.), the opposite is true for Lennon. Rain should have gotten the A-side, as well as I Am The Walrus, much better tracks.
3. Lennon's songs are much edgier. I like that. He wasn't afraid to express himself through songs, while McCartney was more interested in making pastiches. I like both approaches, but Lennon's music just sounds like it comes from the heart more. McCartney was more conservative with his forms. I also think Lennon's attempts at nonsense lyrics were much better. In His Own Write proves he was a great literary talent.

Also Lennon just looked so damn cool. The glasses and all that. And his pretty Japanese wife. His life was also more interesting overall, not even counting his murder. He changed a lot over the years and did a lot of things unrelated to music.