# John Lennon talentless?



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Look at #5 in this list:
https://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I'm sure the guy wasn't perfect but whoever wrote that article has no class, its mainly a bunch of gossip and slander as far as I'm concerned, most of which has nothing to do with music. 

One thing they left out is that Lennon was a very influential person who publicly criticized the Russian, Chinese and American governments. He was also a pro-peace activist who took out a billboard saying 'The War is Over'. It wasn't long after these incidents he was murdered by someone with some red flags in their history a potential victim of mk ultra mind control. 

Michael Jackson was another outspoken celebrity against the establishment, was pointing out lies in history school books and was about to go on a world tour, but died shortly before this under suspicious circumstances. Interesting to see now both of these individuals characters being attacked in the press, in the case of MJ it has been an ongoing thing for decades.

There is also Prince who had publicly been speaking out about a number of issues shortly before his death. I wonder how long it will be until we get similar trashy articles circulating about him.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Tabloid garbage.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Yesterdays news.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

I think everything that says about Lennon we have heard reported before. The gullible made him a cult figure. He reckoned he was an instinctive socialist and money should be abolished which wasn’t bad for a man who died worth $800 million. Some of us who grow up at the time knew all about him. As someone said this is yesterday’s news. Lennon was a pop star. No thing more. He wrote some decent songs with McCartney but his song ‘imagine’ is hopelessly overrated. To call him ‘talentless’ is a silly overstatement. Of course the guy had a certain talent. To name him (as has been done) as one of the ‘greatest Britons’ is absolutely ludicrous.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Look at #5 in this list:
> https://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/





tdc said:


> I'm sure the guy wasn't perfect but whoever wrote that article has no class, its mainly a bunch of gossip and slander as far as I'm concerned, most of which has nothing to do with music.
> 
> One thing they left out is that Lennon was a very influential person who publicly criticized the Russian, Chinese and American governments. He was also a pro-peace activist who took out a billboard saying 'The War is Over'. It wasn't long after these incidents he was murdered by someone with some red flags in their history a potential victim of mk ultra mind control.


There is a great deal of truth in your comment, and there's a certain amount of truth in that article, although hashing through many of these tidbits is a bit over-the-top.

1. Yep, John had a temper. He was a deeply flawed and unfulfilled man, insecure to a fault. A lazy self-loathing genius. An addictive personality. Wife beater? Yep, and he tried to not be. Beating a man senseless for calling him gay? Try that in a Texas bar. A lousy father? Yep that too. Sounds like a lot of people, though.

2. Liar? Embellished and made up stuff. Yep. You do too. Lied about being married? Well, yeah, his "handlers" told him to, just as Hollywood agents told their stars to lie about their past. Hell, a lot of them got married so people wouldn't find out they were LGBT. Flawed self image? Yeah, he embellished the truth.

3. Broke up the Beatles? Sure did. So? It was bound to happen, and had it not been for Paul, it might have happened sooner. But when I think of all the great bands that were broken up by one of their members, well, it seems more like a natural occurrence for a rock band.

4. Politically clueless? Yeah, he was pretty naive about politics. Heart was in the right place though. And, gawd, he's not the first (nor is he the last) performer that was a political idiot.

5. Talentless? Hardly. Wrote two rather unique books. Wrote some of the world's most enduring songs, and most of the rest he wrote weren't bad either, both with The Beatles, and as a solo act. Great with a musical hook, decent guitarist, astonishing singer.

There are so many idiotic sentences in this author's paragraphs on John being untalented, it seems a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. Name a song off of SOME TIME IN NEW YORK CITY? Well, I can, but I'm a Beatles fanatic. But you can say the same thing for pretty much any artist that has more than a few albums. Name a song off of Elton John's A Single Man, or 21 at 33. Name a song off George Harrison's Gone Troppo, or Billy Joel's River of Dreams.

The author cites things that are unflattering, but then becomes indignant over insignificant issues. Faulting Lennon for having "only" a handful of hits as a solo artist? Did you know that Johnny Depp has never won an Oscar?

C'mon: I'll fine with admitting that Lennon's solo output was . . . ahem . . . uneven. But hits?

*Instant Karma
Power to the People
Give Peace a Chance
Imagine
Happy Christmas (War is Over)
Whatever Gets You Through the Night
#9 Dream
(Just Like) Starting Over
Mind Games
Woman
Ain't That A Shame*

. . . and add your faves to that, whatever they may be. I'm kinda fond of *Reddy Teddy/Rip It Up, Beef Jerky, Bring Me Some Truth*, and *Luck of the Irish*.

Yeah, the article is tabloid crap.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

If the question is simply "John Lennon talentless?" then the answer is "No." I don't need to _read _anything _about _him, I just need to _listen _to music _by _him (and his collaborators of course).


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Look at #5 in this list:
> https://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/


You must never have heard anything by The Beatles or Lennon's solo career to take the blog article seriously to even ask.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

This just in: John Lennon was a fallible human. I still view him as positive force in the world. Probably why the forces of my own federal government hated him. As a public figure he used his influence to shine a light on the darkness.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Lennon was far from a saint. But we should all be that talentless.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

starthrower said:


> This just in: John Lennon was a fallible human. I still view him as positive force in the world. Probably why the forces of my own federal government hated him. As a public figure he used his influence* to shine a light on the darkness*.


By accumulating wealth?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

JTS said:


> By accumulating wealth?


The accumulation of wealth is a good thing.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> The accumulation of wealth is a good thing.


For better or worse, those who speak out on behalf of the poor and underprivileged, while accumulating wealth themselves, will always face accusations of hypocrisy. But Lennon was far from alone in that category.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

pianozach said:


> 4. Politically clueless? Yeah, he was pretty naive about politics. *Heart was in the right place though*. And, gawd, he's not the first (nor is he the last) performer that was a political idiot.


The road to Hell is paved with good intentions so they say. Too many are of this same situation, which makes them dangerous especially when they have influence over many. Someone once referred to such as useful idiots.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

The thing in the article which indicates the author is out of his depth regarding Lennon was his criticism of the lyrics to "Strawberry Fields Forever." I have always thought these were masterfully done, especially the halting quality of an inarticulate groping to express the ephemeral nature of nostalgia, which the author of this silly article dismisses as "pure hippie psychedelic babbling."

IMO Lennon was responsible for the most interesting and creative songs, whereas McCartney wrote the more commercial and tuneful songs.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Bulldog said:


> The accumulation of wealth is a good thing.


I've no problem with it but not by people who then say that money should be abolished. It's called hypocrisy!


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

amfortas said:


> For better or worse, those who speak out on behalf of the poor and underprivileged, while accumulating wealth themselves, will always face accusations of hypocrisy. But Lennon was far from alone in that category.


But that doesn't make it any the less hypocritical


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

JTS said:


> I've no problem with it but not by people who then say that money should be abolished. It's called hypocrisy!


The Beatles are still famous after decades because of their music; the non-musical considerations are nothing in comparison. I'm surprised you're placing so much attention on the totally stupid notion of abolishing money.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Bulldog said:


> The Beatles are still famous after decades because of their music; the non-musical considerations are nothing in comparison. I'm surprised you're placing so much attention on the totally stupid notion of abolishing money.


Perhaps you didn't live through the period when Lennon was spouting off his 'socialist' rubbish while accumulating his millions. Some of us had to live through that and were irritated by the twaddle.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Considering he was almost completely illiterate in music theory, his work was pretty amazing IMO.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

JTS said:


> Perhaps you didn't live through the period when Lennon was spouting off his 'socialist' rubbish while accumulating his millions. Some of us had to live through that and were irritated by the twaddle.


You should keep your political views to the political forums. Socialism has many forms, and not all of them are rubbish, nor mutually exclude millionaires to thrive in their systems.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Torkelburger said:


> You should keep your political views to the political forums. Socialism has many forms, and not all of them are rubbish, nor mutually exclude millionaires to thrive in their systems.


I wasn't talking about socialism in general I was talking about Lennon's form of 'socialism', telling us money should be abolished while accumulating millions for himself. They are not my political views but his.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

JTS said:


> Perhaps you didn't live through the period when Lennon was spouting off his 'socialist' rubbish while accumulating his millions. Some of us had to live through that and were irritated by the twaddle.


Being 74 years old, I was around for all of it. Fact is that I didn't pay attention to Lennon's political/social views; I paid attention to the music.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Bulldog said:


> Being 74 years old, I was around for all of it. Fact is that I didn't pay attention to Lennon's political/social views; I paid attention to the music.


I didn't pay much attention to him either. My problem was that other people took him seriously.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

JTS said:


> I didn't pay much attention to him either. My problem was that other people took him seriously.


Well, you're paying attention to him now as if the music is a secondary consideration. FWIW, I didn't know a soul who cared at all about the non-musical part of his life. As for me, I was studying economics, getting married, and having children.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Bulldog said:


> Well, you're paying attention to him now as if the music is a secondary consideration. FWIW, I didn't know a soul who cared at all about the non-musical part of his life. As for me, I was studying economics, getting married, and having children.


As the papers were thrusting the nonmusical part of his life at us then I can't see how anyone could have avoided it unless you didn't read the papers or watch the news. I was also studying science and getting married. But I still watch the news I knew what was going on around me. I can't see what point you're trying to make as lots of artists have lives which are completely variance with the values they claim to hold. Lennon was no exception.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

JTS said:


> I can't see what point you're trying to make as lots of artists have lives which are completely variance with the values they claim to hold. Lennon was no exception.


My point is that Lennon's only significance to the world was as a musician.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

JTS said:


> As the papers were thrusting the nonmusical part of his life at us then I can't see how anyone could have avoided it unless you didn't read the papers or watch the news. I was also studying science and getting married. But I still watch the news I knew what was going on around me. I can't see what point you're trying to make as lots of artists have lives which are completely variance with the values they claim to hold. Lennon was no exception.


I think lots of people lead lives which contradict some of the values they claim to hold. I'd be shocked to find someone who has never been hypocritical. Why is that so important? I agree with Bulldog that everyone I knew only cared about his music.

I have no idea how someone could have created the music he did without talent.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

You may say I'm a dreamer, but imagine there's no [John] Lennon. It's easy if you try.

Actually, it's _not_ so easy. 'Cause one of these days you're simply doing what you do, maybe walking along a path with someone you love, whatever, and this song comes into your consciousness one way or another.






And you realize Lennon is inescapable. It isn't hard to do.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

JTS said:


> As the papers were thrusting the nonmusical part of his life at us then I can't see how anyone could have avoided it unless you didn't read the papers or watch the news. I was also studying science and getting married. But I still watch the news I knew what was going on around me. I can't see what point you're trying to make as lots of artists have lives which are completely variance with the values they claim to hold. Lennon was no exception.





Bulldog said:


> My point is that Lennon's only significance to the world was as a musician.


I, for one, paid attention to both his music, and his 'socialist twaddle'.

Frankly, George Harrison made the most impact of the four of them outside the music world with the first large scale all star benefit concerts. When the money was held up by red tape, he arranged to have the publishing royalties for the songs on his next album, Living In The Material World, to be assigned in perpetuity to the Material World Foundation charity he created.

John dabbled in political activism, and made little impact aside from his songs being catchy rallying cries. There was the whole "bed peace" thing, and "War is Over If You Want It" slogans, and the songs "Power to the People", and "Imagine".

The songs on his Some Time In New York City led to the Nixon Administration fearing that he could cause trouble. He was more of a "face" given to vague cries for Peace!


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> I think lots of people lead lives which contradict some of the values they claim to hold. I'd be shocked to find someone who has never been hypocritical. Why is that so important? I agree with Bulldog that everyone I knew only cared about his music.
> 
> I have no idea how someone could have created the music he did without talent.


Who is arguing about his talent? I think you will note that I have not argued that he was talentless. Over rated maybe. He just happened to come along at the right time. But then how many people have had that good fortune?


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

pianozach said:


> I*, for one, paid attention to both his music, and his 'socialist twaddle*'.
> 
> Frankly, George Harrison made the most impact of the four of them outside the music world with the first large scale all star benefit concerts. When the money was held up by red tape, he arranged to have the publishing royalties for the songs on his next album, Living In The Material World, to be assigned in perpetuity to the Material World Foundation charity he created.
> 
> ...


I suppose it's my own working class background and East End roots that makes me somewhat suspicious of a guy worth millions who claims to be an 'instinctive socialist'. But that has no bearing on his talent as a songwriter


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

progmatist said:


> Considering he was almost completely illiterate in music theory, his work was pretty amazing IMO.


He had talent and imagination which can't be bought with a degree in music theory.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Temporarily closed while the mods discuss the thread.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Purely political comments are not allowed on the forum. Please fpcus your posts on the thread OP. Some posts have been removed. The thread is now open.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

How is it purely political when it's related to a music artist who was outspoken and used his influence to oppose war and mass murder? Should John Lennon be whitewashed for the sake of polite discussion? Everything about playing music is political and depends on the right to free speech and artistic expression. I used the metaphor of shining light on the darkness. Others here labelled him a propaganda spokesman for socialist ideas. The socialist label is a cheap shot used by those without a good argument for opposing the betterment of humanity because there isn't one.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

starthrower said:


> How is it purely political when it's related to a music artist who was outspoken and used his influence to oppose war and mass murder? Should John Lennon be whitewashed for the sake of polite discussion? Everything about playing music is political and depends on the right to free speech and artistic expression. I used the metaphor of shining light on the darkness. Others here labelled him a propaganda spokesman for socialist ideas. The socialist label is a cheap shot used by those without a good argument for opposing the betterment of humanity because there isn't one.


I agree with you.

I think the issue here ISN'T whether artists (specifically, in this case, John Lennon) are themselves political, but nowadays whenever something political is discussed it just turns ugly, with misinformation, loaded words ("socialist"), and personal insults.

Lennon was superficially political, advocating for vague concepts like "world peace" and injustice.

His old buddy McCartney would occasionally get specifically political, like advocating for the banning of IEDs or product testing on animals.

But somehow, when their politics is discussed it quickly turns petty and juvenile.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

I am not a fan of Lennon (or the Fab Four for that matter) but he was certainly a talented pop figure. As for his political beliefs, I find them naive and uninformed. I am reminded of the video put out by some rich, privileged Hollywood actress at the onset of the pandemic singing "Imagine" and advocating for "a world with no possessions".


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I better not mention Ringo. He's always flashing that two fingered peace sign. It might turn ugly!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

From the Guidelines and Terms of Service:



> A special forum has been created for Political and/or Religious discussions that are related to Classical Music. In general political comments and posts are not allowed on Talk Classical, neither in threads nor posts in its forums, social groups, visitor messaging, blogs and signatures, other than those specified related solely to Classical Music in this special dedicated forum.


This thread was started to discuss whether or not Lennon was a talentless musician (#5 in the linked list). There was no need to discuss politics in relation to this subject, and indeed, it is simply not allowed on this site, as should be well-known by now.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

> This thread was started to discuss whether or not Lennon was a talentless musician (#5 in the linked list).


Merely clickbait by the OP linking us to a Lennon bashing / political rant article.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

starthrower said:


> I better not mention Ringo. He's always flashing that two fingered peace sign. It might turn ugly!


Peace would require the destruction of much of the human race. A few nukes would do it.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

*Lennon* was a gifted singer and lyricist, a talented songwriter, and an above average guitarist that could produce some great lead lines as well. His playing, singing, and songwriting were quite often wildly creative.

In spite of his lack of a decent work ethic, and his inherent laziness, he created songs with The Beatles and in his solo careers that have stood the test of time.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> The thing in the article which indicates the author is out of his depth regarding Lennon was his criticism of the lyrics to "Strawberry Fields Forever." I have always thought these were masterfully done, especially the halting quality of an inarticulate groping to express the ephemeral nature of nostalgia, which the author of this silly article dismisses as "pure hippie psychedelic babbling."
> 
> IMO Lennon was responsible for the most interesting and creative songs, whereas McCartney wrote the more commercial and tuneful songs.


I wanted to re-post this here since it was the last post on a page which was quickly turned over, and I had hoped some response would have occurred. But maybe the post is not that interesting after all.

Also, I wanted to encourage us to get off the political track.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

starthrower said:


> Merely clickbait by the OP linking us to a Lennon bashing / political rant article.


So, we can all safely not be baited, not veer off into politics...and the thread could be closed with no harm done. Anyone who wants to continue discussing whether Lennon is talented/less can just start a new thread.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Forster said:


> So, we can all safely not be baited, not veer off into politics...and the thread could be closed with no harm done. Anyone who wants to continue discussing whether Lennon is talented/less can just start a new thread.


We need an option to make it into a poll with the thread closed to any posting, just click your poll choice and be done. That'll keep the politics out!


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

The question asked by the OP is whether Lennon was talentless and of course the answer is no as he obviously did have talent. He and his buddies however were extremely fortunate in having a producer like George Martin who certainly knew how to bring out the best in them, In fact I would say that 50% of their success as a group was down to Martin and his brilliance in the studio.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

starthrower said:


> Merely clickbait by the OP linking us to a Lennon bashing / political rant article.


Sorry about that. Maybe I should have copied and pasted the paragraph in #5 of the list onto the OP, (but seemed a bit too long). But I'm curious; do the other members of the Beatles had/have what Lennon didn't have, musically? What's the criteria for judging? None of them can/could read sheet music, and is/was a virtuoso instrumentalist/singer. Right?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Forster said:


> So, we can all safely not be baited, not veer off into politics...and the thread could be closed with no harm done. Anyone who wants to continue discussing whether Lennon is talented/less can just start a new thread.


A pretty silly subject for a thread since he was half of one of the greatest pop songwriting duos in history. The person who wrote the article obviously hates Lennon and felt the need to bash a man who's been dead for 41 years, and vent his right wing political views.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Nothing against you, hammer, but the guy who wrote the article is a jerk. There was a similar one about the Stones a few weeks back calling Keith Richards a racist because the band got rich playing American rhythm and blues music.

As far as the Beatles go, reading music and being a virtuoso are skills, not talent. Who cares? Most pop artists don't have these skills. Nobody cares as long as the songs and record production is great.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

starthrower said:


> A pretty silly subject for a thread since he was half of one of the greatest pop songwriting duos in history. The person who wrote the article obviously hates Lennon and felt the need to bash a man who's been dead for 41 years, and vent his right wing political views.


I don't think deploring wife beating, etc has anything to do with political views, has it? Many talented artists have been deeply flawed and unpleasant people in their private lives. I can remember in my youth hearing that Lennon was a great one for a bottle fight. Being a talented song writer does not necessarily make a great person. Just when that person is set out to be a role model for others. Where the guy gets it wrong is to assume that because Lennon was thus flawed he was talentless and that wasn't the case.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry about that. Maybe I should have copied and pasted the paragraph in #5 of the list onto the OP, (but seemed a bit too long). But I'm curious; do the other members of the Beatles had/have what Lennon didn't have, musically? What's the criteria for judging? *None of them can/could read sheet music, and is/was a virtuoso instrumentalist/singer. Right?*




May I point out that the father of American song, Irving Berlin, could not read music and could only play the piano in one key! And his playing, according to those who heard him, was not exactly virtuosic!


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry about that. Maybe I should have copied and pasted the paragraph in #5 of the list onto the OP, (but seemed a bit too long). But I'm curious; do the other members of the Beatles had/have what Lennon didn't have, musically? What's the criteria for judging? None of them can/could read sheet music, and is/was a virtuoso instrumentalist/singer. Right?


It's safe to say the they certainly complimented each other, and learned from each other.

Paul was often (but not always) able to - ahem - refine Lennon's random droppings of genius, and John inspired Paul to not be so - music hall. George and Ringo almost always found the perfect things to play. Even when John and Paul weren't directly collaborating, there was a brotherly competition to impress the other.

As they aged, their roles - ahem - evolved, and John and George became dissatisfied at how the group dynamic churned Paul to the top . . . but that's because he came up with ideas, cranked out songs, worked out details, and led the band when John became unwilling/unable to truly function as the band's leader.

Musically they all brought different types of musicality to the studio. Not being a "virtuoso", or not able to read music doesn't mean they weren't musically talented. In fact, Paul was an excellent bassist, guitarist, and drummer, and was fairly competent on the piano as well. He developed into a versatile and creative singer along the way. John was blessed with a rocker voice, and managed just fine on rhythm guitar. George was two or three years behind the other age-wise, and his skills as a songwriter and musician lagged a bit behind the others, but only by a few years. And Ringo was considered to be the best drummer in Liverpool in 1962, and the Beatles managed to entice him into the band. Ringo was an extraordinarily musical drummer . . . he eschewed flashiness most of the time, instead choosing to play what was perfect for any given song.

So, yes, the others had talents that John didn't have, and John had some talents the other didn't have.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

JTS said:


> I don't think deploring wife beating, etc has anything to do with political views, has it?


You need to read the article more carefully. It's most definitely political. And that's all I'm going to say since it's a music forum and the mods have kindly asked us to tone it down.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

starthrower said:


> You need to read the article more carefully. It's most definitely political. And that's all I'm going to say since it's a music forum and the mods have kindly asked us to tone it down.


Perhaps you could apply the same criteria to yourself about reading other people's comments. What I said has nothing to do with politics


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

JTS said:


> Perhaps you could apply the same criteria to yourself about reading other people's comments. What I said has nothing to do with politics


Yeah, I know! You cherry picked the wife beating thing. But enough of this go round. It's really not that important.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

starthrower said:


> Yeah, I know! You cherry picked the wife beating thing. But enough of this go round. It's really not that important.


I picked a point that was non-political. Actually only one of the 10 points was political. But anyway the OP only asked just to deal with number five anyway and if you look I have given my answer to that


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I don't feel The Beatles made high art, not that this is what they were going for. I don't listen to them that often. Pink Floyd is much better imo!


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

I've never been a giant Beatles or Lennon fan and have been known to say things like 'All you need is love and Imagine are the dumbest songs ever written.' That said, the article linked in this thread is pure ressentiment.

Favorite Lennon songs: In My Life, Come Together, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Norwegian Wood, and Ticket to Ride.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

bz3 said:


> I've never been a giant Beatles or Lennon fan and have been known to say things like 'All you need is love and Imagine are the dumbest songs ever written.' That said, the article linked in this thread is pure ressentiment.
> 
> Favorite Lennon songs: In My Life, Come Together, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Norwegian Wood, and Ticket to Ride.


On further reflection, I'll give an honorable mention: Sexy Sadie.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

bz3 said:


> things like 'All you need is love and Imagine are the dumbest songs ever written.'


If you can't think of anything dumber, you've been living under a rock for 50 years. Those are like symphonies compared to some of the stuff that's made it into the charts over the years.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Forster said:


> If you can't think of anything dumber, you've been living under a rock for 50 years. Those are like symphonies compared to some of the stuff that's made it into the charts over the years.


I don't consider rap music, but to be perfectly fair those songs are very dumb. Even nonsense like REM songs are less stupid.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

John Lennon and all four Beatles comprised the greatest Rock band that ever existed. All four (John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, put together created the stuff of genius; and you might add in George Martin for production and Brian Epstein for marketing). As rock-n-roll music goes, it's pretty much the repudiation for all I stand for musically, as classical music is my main forte in music. The Beatles, however, are an exception as they transcend genres. 

John Lennon may have also been deeply flawed and disturbingly so. We had a recent discussion along similar lines regarding a late American conductor who was widely revered and admired, and sold zillions of highly acclaimed classical music recordings. I will not bother to identify that person or bring back to the surface the allegations of what was done, because there is no need to state what is obvious. Likewise, many of our great and beloved composers were of questionable moral character, and again, I will refrain from mentioning names as we all know who they were and the sins they were accused of committing. Death puts to rest all grievances and music serves to soothe and find beauty in a weary world.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

bz3 said:


> I've never been a giant Beatles or Lennon fan and have been known to say things like 'All you need is love and Imagine are the dumbest songs ever written.' .


They were two songs of the era when it was thought that the world's problems could be solved by people lying in bed together. I remember Eric burden of the animals saying that 'we really believed it in those days' that 'all you need is love' ie sex. He of course later admitted that the problems were slightly more complicated when once one got out of adolescence!


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

JTS said:


> They were two songs of the era (re: _All You Need is Love_, _Imagine_) when it was thought that the world's problems could be solved by people lying in bed together. I remember Eric burden of the animals saying that 'we really believed it in those days' that 'all you need is love' ie sex. He of course later admitted that the problems were slightly more complicated when once one got out of adolescence!


I've never seen _All You Need is Love_ as a song that is about anything carnal. Jesus taught people to "love thy neighbor". So what's wrong with that?

Music isn't meant to solve the world's problems. Music serves to remind us that there is always some beauty in this weary world.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think he's the most talented Beatle. Paul music can really drive me nuts.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Coach G said:


> I've never seen _All You Need is Love_ as a song that is about anything carnal. Jesus taught people to "love thy neighbor". So what's wrong with that?
> 
> Music isn't meant to solve the world's problems. Music serves to remind us that there is always some beauty in this weary world.


Well coming at the time of the sexual revolution….with its author having a 'love in' in bed!


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

Perhaps he had talent, just not talent that aligns with anything I appreciate.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

This seems like an incredibly silly thread.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

JTS said:


> Well coming at the time of the sexual revolution….with its author having a 'love in' in bed!


So he at least had a talent for capitalising on the 60s counter-culture?

Lennon would not have been the only musician of the time to think that the world's problems could be solved by a social revolution inspired by 'love'. The 60s is famous for both the idealism (and hedonism) of its younger generation following post-war austerity and the Cold War; and for the subsequent disillusion that set in that not only would things not change, but the young would grow older and become as much a part of the system as everyone else.

I see nothing wrong, however, in taking that optimism at face value, especially when Lennon and McCartney together produced such great music that provided a soundtrack to those hopeful days.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

fbjim said:


> This seems like an incredibly silly thread.


It is silly. Whether or not people like the music of John Lennon or are holding a grudge because they think he wasn't a very nice person; he sold zillions of albums, is revered as crucial to the success of the greatest rock band in the history of the universe, who went on to produce many more songs on his own that are beloved by millions. I'm not going to argue with that.


----------



## fib (Nov 7, 2021)

i really have no idea why you people talk about the beatles like they were really something special! under par boy band with terrible vocals and terrible instrumentalists..


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

fib said:


> i really have no idea why you people talk about the beatles like they were really something special! under par boy band with terrible vocals and terrible instrumentalists..


I'd like to welcome you and thank you for your first post at TC. :lol:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fib said:


> i really have no idea why you people talk about the beatles like they were really something special! under par boy band with terrible vocals and terrible instrumentalists..


I suspect you are in your 20s.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

fib said:


> i really have no idea why you people talk about the beatles like they were really something special! under par boy band with terrible vocals and terrible instrumentalists..


Can't wait to hear which artists you *DO* think are *"really something special"*.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Well, I know half a dozen songs from All Things Must Pass that I enjoy now as much as anything by Lennon... whatever that says


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

philoctetes said:


> Well, I know half a dozen songs from All Things Must Pass that I enjoy now as much as anything by Lennon... whatever that says


I'd say that says what it says; nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I'm not really a fan of Beatle solo projects but Lennon/Plastic Ono Band was always my favorite of them.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

fbjim said:


> I'm not really a fan of Beatle solo projects but Lennon/Plastic Ono Band was always my favorite of them.


Comparing *Lennon/Plastic Ono Band* to *Harrison's All Things Must Pass* is an unfair comparison.

*ATMP* was a triple LP, with two discs of songs, and an additional bonus disc of some excellent _*"Apple Jam"*_, the LP of improvised material with a host of excellent musicians. The two proper studio discs don't have any filler, or weak material. Producer Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound" production is still debated to this day as to whether it helps or hurts the material, but I think he overdid it. No other complaints.

*PLO*, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. It's a vastly personal collection of lyrics, and a mostly stripped-down production, in spite of both *ATMP* and *PLO* having Phil Spector as a producer. When you break down the 11-song track list though, there's an awful lot of unevenness to the whole 40 minute album. For instance, track 11, the 49 second _*My Mummy's Dead*_ is just a throwaway (and sort of echoes the end of *Abbey Road*, where Paul tacked on the throwaway _*Her Majesty*_). _*Working Class Hero*_ and *I Found Out* gratuitously use the words c**k and f••• for shock value, although it may have been groundbreaking for a pop artist at the time (But see where it's got us _now_: Have you listened to some of the huge early rap stars' tracks? Just crammed full of sh•• talkin').

*Well Well Well*, with its primitivism and Primal Scream Therapy inspired scream-singing goes on a bit too long, transitioning from avant garde to annoying in a matter of 15 seconds. It was more effective at the end of the opening track, _*Mother*_, although the lyrics in the body of the _that_ song seem a bit whiney. Speaking of whiney, how about the John playing the victim card in Isolation? Poor misunderstood John.

And then there's *Remember*, which is poorly executed . . . John's vocal entrances are somewhat random, and bassist Klaus Voorman occasionally flubs the changes, being unable to predict where John is going (Ringo manages to plow through it by keeping a beat of one-and, one-and, one-and, one-and, even during the introduction, which is in 3/4).

I mean, *PLO* is what it is. Most of the songs (7) are just John, Klaus, and Ringo, with only one of those seven featuring a single instrumental overdub. Three of the remaining songs are just John and his guitar.

But my wife would flip out if I were to crank this up . . . she'd object to the "naughty" words, hate the screaming, and get indignant at the flip dismissal of Jesus in the song _*God*_.

Nowhere on *PLO* is there any musical complexity, but that's part of the charm, I suppose - the stripped-down sparseness of the arrangements. Funny, though, that Paul beat him to _THAT_ on his MCCARTNEY album, most of which was recorded at home, often with instruments plugged directly into the mixing console.

Then there's the two Bonus Tracks on the 2000 reissue of PLO: There's the ridiculous one-chord _*Do The Oz*_ song, complete with background wailing from Yoko, and the catchy (and jingoistic) _*Power To The People*_. I like the latter, but it's always bothered me that the opening choir chorus is actually flat. And yeah, great sentiment, but have you actually paid any attention to the lyrics? They're . . . _well_ . . .

https://genius.com/John-lennon-power-to-the-people-lyrics


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

I think his stuff is a lot more musically interesting than that of the undeniably talented McCartney. I think he was also one of the most underrated guitarists in pop music.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

dissident said:


> I think his stuff is a lot more musically interesting than that of the undeniably talented McCartney. I think he was also one of the most underrated guitarists in pop music.


I don't dispute his talent as a musician/vocalist, nor as a songwriter.

In fact, most of the songs on his first album as visceral and personal.

But comparing him to former bandmate McCartney is an apples/oranges kind of matchup: John's music on his first few albums was sloppy, and the albums were rather short (in fact for SOME TIME IN NEW YORK CITY he alternated tracks with Yoko, so he basically only contributed half an album). The same with his singles: The majority of his singles had a Yoko track on the B-side. As his career progressed he often became a parody of what he said he hated in other artists: several generic, bland, sappy tracks, often strings-saturated.

John's later output pretty much stayed in a narrow range of similar styles.

McCartney, on the other hand, ventured into all sorts of styles and genres, sometimes for a single song, occasionally for an entire album. Paul dabbled in electronica, classical, American songbook, and borrow liberally from reggae, disco, arena rock, folk rock, hard rock, alt rock . . . and on and on.

He frequently collaborated with other artists (Michael Jackson, Chet Atkins, Stevie Wonder, Elvis Costello, George Michael, Johnny Cash, Eric Stewart, Tony Bennett, David Gilmour, etc).


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

pianozach said:


> Comparing *Lennon/Plastic Ono Band* to *Harrison's All Things Must Pass* is an unfair comparison.
> 
> *ATMP* was a triple LP, with two discs of songs, and an additional bonus disc of some excellent _*"Apple Jam"*_, the LP of improvised material with a host of excellent musicians. The two proper studio discs don't have any filler, or weak material. Producer Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound" production is still debated to this day as to whether it helps or hurts the material, but I think he overdid it. No other complaints.
> 
> *PLO*, on the other hand,


Why are you referring to Plastic Ono Band as PLO? Shouldn't it be POB?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

SanAntone said:


> I suspect you are in your 20s.


Good point. Sometimes it is what we grew up wtih that has the greater impression. I liked a lot of 60s and 70s music and not much after that. Nor much before that.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Why are you referring to Plastic Ono Band as PLO? Shouldn't it be POB?


Right you are.  My mistake. POB, not PLO (the acronym for the Palestine Liberation Organization, which is something entirely different).


----------

