John Lennon Portfolio

[mapleleafgirl]

Personally, i have read alot about the Beatles and John Lennon. As a matter of fact, Cynthia Lennon has recently written a book about her life with John and it's simply called 'John'. I thought it was a good book and it exposed what i had already thought about John Lennon from alot of the research i've done on the Beatles.

John Lennon is seen as some sort of humanitarian and I cannot understand why? Yes, he wrote songs about peace and love but what he lived in his own life only makes him look like a total hypocrite. And just because you decide to sit in bed in you're pyjamas in protest of the war and have it broadcast to the world doesn't mean you are doing something!

I don't doubt that he was a genius - Alot of geniuses don't do very good in school. Einstein failed grade 3.
And i certainly don't doubt his song writting. I'm positive he wrote his own material but to regard John Lennon as a role model is a an uneducated mistake. The crap he put Cynthia and his son Julian through was just awful. And the way he treated people was just rude!

Would you consider someone who couldn't stand the sight of , and often made fun of crippled and handicapped people a humanitarian? I certainly don't! And the way he shuned his first son Julian is just heartbreaking and inexcusable considering that he too was abandoned as a young boy by his father. Of all people, he should've known better.

I would encourage anyone to learn the truth about John Lennon. It's worth learning how to recognize false hero's in our society.

yeah, but like the other guy said, at least he took a public stand for what he believed in. that took allot of guts IMHO. Most stars are so worried about their images and he had allot to lose by going against the beatles image. i admire him for taking a stand, even if he was a jerk.

 

[tamarin]

Sanctus, nice effort! <<Your assertation that he could not have been a great artist because he didn't do well in school is, if truth be told, just silly.>>

Sanctus, what I'm saying is it's certainly suspicious that a person with talent, in those areas directly linked to academic success, is such a dunce at school.
Surely, you don't take poseurs like Andy Warhol seriously or all that silly inflation called avant-garde. Lennon obviously found some attraction in that quirky, vacuous corner of the world. Maybe it reflected what he was himself.
It remains strange to me that a group as gifted as the Beatles should have as one of its architects someone as nebulous as Lennon. I wish he was still here. Give me a chance to say it bluntly: "Are you a fake, sir?"

 

[MagnoliaApples]

I can appreciate the efforts that he made in the anti-war movement but lets not forget, he wasn't the only one. At that time there were many artists who took part in the anti-war movement. John Lennon was most famous for it because he was a Beatle. Even though he didn't do well in school, I think that John was a highly intelligent man that was acutely aware of his celebrity and used it to his advantage. Now, i'm not saying that he didn't care about or believe in what he was doing because if you know anything about John Lennon, you know that he was painstakingly genuine and he didn't have it in him to be a fake but i can't forget that his whole stint with Yoko - the anti-war phase - was fueled by some serious drug use (heroin, LSD) that he was virtually unrecognizable to his ex-wife, his son and also his family back home. He dropped all contact with everyone he knew and loved. To me this is a sign that he was absent not only to them but to himself and that itself makes me wonder about his efforts and his work. This is not to say that i don't appreciate the music, which i do but there are some things about his work that i've notice has flown right under the publics radar.

Example : Imagine. People don't realise that the song Imagine, one of the most popular and revered songs in Rock n' Roll, is the Atheist/Anarchist anthem of all time. People seem to interpret that song as "Imagine if we didn't have a heaven or a hell or countries, no religion. How terrible it would be!" Believe it or not, that's how many people interpret that song when in fact what he is actually saying is that we don't need those things and the world would be a better place without them.
Now, i'm sure that many people today would have no problems admitting that they agree with him but there are so many people who are religious to some extent that wouldn't be able to enjoy the song as much if they were cognizant of what, in fact, they were saying to themselves.

Another example : Woman Is The Nigger Of The World. To use that word (you know which one) in any context shows a great amount of disrespect to the people in which it applies. But to use it in that context is even worse because he is using this word to indicate " the slave of the slaves" <- he even says this in his song. I understand where he is coming from and, as a song writer myself, i know exactly what he is trying to say with that song but considering the day in which this song came out, the album where you'll find this song is called 'Some Time In New York City' was released was in 1972. So it's not like he was unaware of the times and didn't know what was going on in America. He alienated an entire demographic with that song. I know this because it was someone of that demographic that pointed this out to me and admitted that because of it they were never really a big fan.

I look at John Lennon as one of the great artists of our time. But i have yet to find good reason as to what made him a great humanitarian or role model. What this all says to me is that the public are quick to glorify without educating themselves as to who they are putting on the proverbial pedestal. We still do this today.
Which i think is our loss because the true heros and role models are out there but because they don't usually come in beautifully wrapped packages, we overlook them and don't always give them the honor they deserve.

 

[mapleleafgirl]

Sanctus, nice effort! <<Your assertation that he could not have been a great artist because he didn't do well in school is, if truth be told, just silly.>>

Sanctus, what I'm saying is it's certainly suspicious that a person with talent, in those areas directly linked to academic success, is such a dunce at school.
Surely, you don't take poseurs like Andy Warhol seriously or all that silly inflation called avant-garde. Lennon obviously found some attraction in that quirky, vacuous corner of the world. Maybe it reflected what he was himself.
It remains strange to me that a group as gifted as the Beatles should have as one of its architects someone as nebulous as Lennon. I wish he was still here. Give me a chance to say it bluntly: "Are you a fake, sir?"

yeah...buttttttttttt. that theory would be okay if he worked alone and nobody saw him doing his stuff. but he was part of a band where he didnt write his songs by himself. paul wouldve picked up on the fact that john was a fake. plussss. they toured and played all over the world to millions of people. they wouldve noticed he was a fake too. what about the producers and people in the studios when they recorded? lots of people were around whne he and paul wrote all those songs and the group played them. plus, they played in bars even before being famous, wouldve had to be real to do that.

 

[mapleleafgirl]

I can appreciate the efforts that he made in the anti-war movement but lets not forget, he wasn't the only
Which i think is our loss because the true heros and role models are out there but because they don't usually come in beautifully wrapped packages, we overlook them and don't always give them the honor they deserve.

like all you wrote is fine, and yes he wasnt the only one. my point is he didnt have to do anything. he couldve just stayed being a beatle and shut his mouth but he choose to support his cause with his actions.maybe a song here and there dosent get liked by you or whoever, but so what? we cant like eveyrthing by anybody. i dont really like yokos voice, but i read her lyrics on the double fantasy album and they are great lyrics., she was a good poet. point is, no matter what he was like, you hae to respct the fact he put his career on the line for something he believed in. some stars have lost their careers or fame for doing less. i read a book where paul said john was a brave man cos he was possibly going to kill his reputation fighting for peace and still did it, or something like that.

 

[mapleleafgirl]

Sanctus, nice effort! <<Your assertation that he could not have been a great artist because he didn't do well in school is, if truth be told, just silly.>>

Sanctus, what I'm saying is it's certainly suspicious that a person with talent, in those areas directly linked to academic success, is such a dunce at school.
Surely, you don't take poseurs like Andy Warhol seriously or all that silly inflation called avant-garde. Lennon obviously found some attraction in that quirky, vacuous corner of the world. Maybe it reflected what he was himself.
It remains strange to me that a group as gifted as the Beatles should have as one of its architects someone as nebulous as Lennon. I wish he was still here. Give me a chance to say it bluntly: "Are you a fake, sir?"

i dont get it. why would doing badly in school make you think he wasnt a great artist? or a fake? maybe his head was messed up. i read a book about the beatles and his dad took off when he was little and his mom dumped him with her sister and than later got killed by a car accident when he was a teenager.thas gottta mess wit your head when youre a kid. it would mine. my dad took off and my brother went all gothic for a little bit, scared the crap outta my mom. who knows why he didnt do good in school, but the point is school dosent make you smart or anything?god, i knw lots of smart kids that are failing cos theyre skipping out and whatever.or they just dont care.maybe john just didnt care???

 

[MagnoliaApples]

Sanctus, nice effort! <<Your assertation that he could not have been a great artist because he didn't do well in school is, if truth be told, just silly.>>

Sanctus, what I'm saying is it's certainly suspicious that a person with talent, in those areas directly linked to academic success, is such a dunce at school.
Surely, you don't take poseurs like Andy Warhol seriously or all that silly inflation called avant-garde. Lennon obviously found some attraction in that quirky, vacuous corner of the world. Maybe it reflected what he was himself.
It remains strange to me that a group as gifted as the Beatles should have as one of its architects someone as nebulous as Lennon. I wish he was still here. Give me a chance to say it bluntly: "Are you a fake, sir?"

He wrote songs in front of people. He wrote in front of Cynthia - his ex - wife, George Martin - thier producer and in front of the whole band and any body else who was in the room. I can't imagine why you would think that he didn't write those songs himself. There isn't an artist alive that would write songs of that caliber just to give them to someone else. Artist are very posessive of their royalties, their intellectual property and i can't see many people relenquishing that no matter who you are or what you do.

Mapleleafgirl - like all you wrote is fine, and yes he wasnt the only one. my point is he didnt have to do anything. he couldve just stayed being a beatle and shut his mouth but he choose to support his cause with his actions.maybe a song here and there dosent get liked by you or whoever, but so what? we cant like eveyrthing by anybody. i dont really like yokos voice, but i read her lyrics on the double fantasy album and they are great lyrics., she was a good poet. point is, no matter what he was like, you hae to respct the fact he put his career on the line for something he believed in. some stars have lost their careers or fame for doing less. i read a book where paul said john was a brave man cos he was possibly going to kill his reputation fighting for peace and still did it, or something like that.

Okay. Let me put it this way - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr ; Now here is a man who 'fought' for peace. He was beaten, hosed down, ridiculed, walked for miles, had his life threatened and eventually died for what he believed in. He never had a million dollar mansion. He was never a rock n' roll rebel with millions of adoring fan who would do and subscribe to anything he told them. Just because McCartney said that John was a brave man to do what he did is purely Pauls opinion and i would debate that one with him if he were in front of me today.

It was the perfect climate for John to come out with his anti war sentiments. And acording to Cynthia - Johns first wife - the only time he ever had any hate mail that seriously made him fear for his life was when he had made that - 'the beatles are greater than Jesus' comment that set off an international boycott of everthing Beatles. Radio stations wouldn't spin Beatles records. The held Beatle memerobilia bonfires in stadium across north America. It was a scene.

John Lennon knew that he had a following that would support his anti war efforts and he knew that Anti-War was in. When you have people of every demographic shouting in the streets to stop the war all it takes is are some very intelligent and enterprising artists to write the soundtrack to it. And because he was the artist he was, with the celebrity he had and with people all over the world watching with baited breath, he jumped on the band wagon. And i'm not saying that this is a negative thing, in fact, for someone like John Lennon it was only natural that he would be attracted to and use his talents to further this cause because he was anti-establishment. It suited him perfectly and gave him the drive and motivation that he was lacking post Beatles.

So, you are right when you say he didn't have to do anything but he did BUT what i'm saying is that when you put him side by side with the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr or, say, Mahatma Ghadi and what they did for the cause of peace, if you really understand what John Lennon was all about, he begins to pale in comparison.

I'm not saying that i don't like John Lennon or his work. What i am saying is that he is not what everyone thinks he is and that the public has created this aura around him that he didn't earn in respect to those that i have mentioned and many others that i haven't mentioned that were working very hard at that time to help the cause.

And as far as artists go - You could write a list miles long of all the artists and all the songs that were written at that time talking about what state the world was in , Vietnam war and Peace songs.

 

[tamarin]

Gosh, John has strong apologists here but maybe they're right. Maybe the Beatle was bonafide. Maybe he did participate as luminously as thought. Hmmmm. Gotta think about it. Maybe get out the Ouija board, get Martha the channeler over and see if we can hook up with rock's uber-genious. Be worth a try. Somewhere in the night sky all mysteries are solved. All questions answered. We shall see.

 

[darleneonfire]

I haven't listened to a Beatles album in ages. I love their music. I hear them still on the radio all the time.

I was a huge fan growing up, they literally formed the music of my youth since I was around five when they first came to North America.

What a brilliant set of young men they were. John was a bit out there for me, I was more of a Paul person.I also thought George a bit odd too. Ringo was good though.

 

[tamarin]

Yes, in an age increasingly known for contagion, the Beatles were the first superbug!