Lennon

[Reactionary Rage]

Dec 9, 2020 19:38:35 GMT "BING E BONG" said:

Dec 9, 2020 19:10:41 GMT Sneelock said:

was what I picked and I was bombed out on eggnog so I'll stand by that. John & Yoko's "activism" (for lack of a better word.) might look a little dated or naive to the guy I've grown to be. that song reminds me of the person I was. I guess I was naive - I was certainly dated - I can show you pictures.

I've reached a point where hearing that song has me fighting back tears nearly every time Yoko comes warbling in on the chorus. why does it do that to me? is it because I miss being naive and thinking people could stop war just by standing up and saying it needs to stop? does it make me sad because I can't imagine it making any difference if people did? sometimes, I think the thing that really slays me about that song is that there was a time in my lifetime where people presumed we HAD the power to do such a thing. I hate thinking that time has passed. This song reminds me of that time each and every year even if somebody lame is singing it.

*hugs*


(first time ever I've posted such a thing)

When I was 20 and a utopian I would listen to Imagine and find it really quite moving. The 60s were obviously a more optimistic time and Imagine captures a lot of that feeling complete with a hymnal quality. You can't eradicate war obviously and it's daft to think you could but in its sincerity and utopian dreams Imagine does capture some aspect of the human psyche that's eternal. We've mentioned Sowell's unconstrained versus constrained vision on the politics threads, well, Imagine is one of the purest artistic distillations of the unconstrained vision. Those who come down on that side will find its candour and outlook more powerful than those who don't.

Naive? Absolutely but such expressions of relative innocence and hope from that particular period still have the power to touch me because they do express a certain sense of loss and innocence that seems archaic now.

[~ / % ? *]

I think Revolution's lyric as a statement of cause are better, and more realistic than Imagine's.

[Deleted]

Revolution seems very tied to a specific time, Imagine seems more universal.

[~ / % ? *]

It's easy if you try

[Reactionary Rage]

Dec 10, 2020 9:28:50 GMT @madcyril1 said:

Revolution seems very tied to a specific time, Imagine seems more universal.

Universal perhaps but Revolution is more mature and understands some of the fundamental problems of revolution.  This part:


You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We'd all love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead

Actually cuts deeper than most.  

Not as deep nor as cynical as Won't Get Fooled Again mind but still.

[Deleted]

Dec 10, 2020 10:55:02 GMT Reactionary Rage said:

Dec 10, 2020 9:28:50 GMT @madcyril1 said:

Revolution seems very tied to a specific time, Imagine seems more universal.

Universal perhaps but Revolution is more mature and understands some of the fundamental problems of revolution.  This part:


You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We'd all love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead

Actually cuts deeper than most.  

Not as deep nor as cynical as Won't Get Fooled Again mind but still.

I wouldn't really agree. I can see it would play better to your own particular political sensibilities, which is fine, but it doesn't make it "more mature" necessarilly.

[Reactionary Rage]

Imagine is utopian fantasy. A hippy hymn sang by a millionaire rock star in a pristine white mansion. Which is fine but it's also Lennon's equivalent of Cliff Richards Millenium prayer.

Revolution is actually getting its fingers dirty....a little bit. It's venturing into the real world of doubt and contradictions (count me out...IN etc). It understands that you can talk about changing the institutions and all that revolutionary stuff but maybe the problem is actually yourself. It leaves both things open to explore and suggests that the great revolution is really the revolution of the mind MacDonald talked about.

It doesn't go as cynical as WGFA but it understands some of the same insights/lessons. In that way it is more mature than Imagine.

[Deleted]

Imagine is difficult because it's become some of those things yes. Perhaps Lennon's mistake was in musically "sugar coating" it, to use his phrase,so it's become this neutered idealistic good natured hymn. But the lyrics are quite specific in identifying religion and capitalist greed as the sources of so much suffering and conflict. I don't think that's naive, I think it's bang on.

["BING E BONG"]

If I was looking for a good example of 'rock star cut off from the world/talking through his arse' then I don't think I could find better than 'imagine no possessions/it's easy if you try'

[loveless]

Dec 10, 2020 12:23:02 GMT "BING E BONG" said:

If I was looking for a good example of 'rock star cut off from the world/talking through his arse' then I don't think I could find better than 'imagine no possessions/it's easy if you try'

People always say some variation of this, as you know, and...shit, Lennon? He seems (as much as ANY of the heavyweights, at times moreso) to always have this prominent element of "Do you think I was EXCLUDING MYSELF from this?" in his work.

I don't think there's anything inherently contradictory about a wealthy person lamenting the fundamental relationship between greed and poverty.

[~ / % ? *]

Lennon was a pretty cynical guy, I always took Imagine ironically.

(Millennials did not invent irony) Viet Nam converted many to that point of view.

["BING E BONG"]

Dec 10, 2020 12:32:47 GMT loveless said:

Dec 10, 2020 12:23:02 GMT "BING E BONG" said:

If I was looking for a good example of 'rock star cut off from the world/talking through his arse' then I don't think I could find better than 'imagine no possessions/it's easy if you try'

People always say some variation of this, as you know, and...shit, Lennon? He seems (as much as ANY of the heavyweights, at times moreso) to always have this prominent element of "Do you think I was EXCLUDING MYSELF from this?" in his work.

I don't think there's anything inherently contradictory about a wealthy person lamenting the fundamental relationship between greed and poverty.

No, of course not. But still - it seems at odds with a man who was famous for his bluntness, his lack of bullshit.

In the BBC i/view he mentions that the song would have been given a Yoko co-credit (some of the words come from Grapefruit) BUT 1971 was a less enlightened time (his idea, not mine), she was 'just a chick'. Anyway - it's not too much of a stretch to say that, for better or worse, these 'philosophies' were influenced by Yoko. 

The stuff about the 1969 'bag' malarkey is interesting too - I mean, his views on it. It's great to hear him say 'it was just a bit of fun' (more feet-on-the-ground plain speaking), but where I'm scratching my head is when he pushes this point about 'peace' - that if he says the word often enough, that if he pushes this idea in his music often enough, then the world might see some positive changes. It's a major feature of one part of the interview, you can tell he believes it firmly, and - like I said earlier - it seems strange coming from a man who I really don't think would have even entertained those sorts of ideas ten years before. But maybe you think that's a kind of progress. I'm not sure.

[Deleted]

I don't fully understand some of your points there. Why is it important that the Lennon of 1961 might not have agreed with Imagine or the peace campaign? Unless you are talking of his 1980 interview, but that makes even less sense as clearly he did believe those things ten years before.

I also think defining Imagine as some Yoko influenced vague 'philosophy' is odd, as I said above the song is very specific in its targets.

I'm not a total fan of Imagine at all btw. I have a problem with a couple of its lines, however I will defend its intention.

["BING E BONG"]

Dec 10, 2020 13:01:00 GMT @madcyril1 said:

I don't fully understand some of your points there. Why is it important that the Lennon of 1961 might not have agreed with Imagine or the peace campaign.

I didn't say it was important, just that the Lennon of 1961 probably had his feet on the ground more than the Lennon of ten years later. Therefore, just possibly, was a bit more in touch with reality and just possibly talked a bit more sense.

Anyway it just seems that people are determined to make allowances for him when it comes to this 'peace' business. I just think it's a bit silly.

I tried to get some 'Beatle flaws' thing going here earlier in the year but was faced with Davey who said at one point 'well yeah I COULD think of some things that were bad about the Beatles - but why SHOULD I?'. And that's what you're up against. 

[Reactionary Rage]

Dec 10, 2020 12:32:49 GMT ~ / % ? * said:

Lennon was a pretty cynical guy, I always took Imagine ironically.

(Millennials did not invent irony) Viet Nam converted many to that point of view.

I don't get that from it I have to say  Are we expected to believe Give Peace A Chance was ironic too?  He was sincere but I suspect he needed to suspend his disbelief somewhat to deliver the message.  I mean given the video I think we can say John was maybe lost in his own world a bit (see also Two Virgins for evidence of John becoming somewhat untethered from reality).  He was caught up in a cultural moment and threw himself into that sorta thing, as was his style, but I'm sure it went against some of his more cynical, natural instincts and it may have been rooted in some kind of psychological repudiation of his "former" violent self hence all the peace stuff.  Also Yoko's influence was key (again, the power seems to flow from her to him and may have been in response to his previous, "dominant" relations with women).  They brought out some of the worst in each other I reckon, at least artistically anyway.