As the tin says, though forgive me if there have been topics on it before. So, what would be the ramifications of John Lennon not getting gunned down on that fateful December night?
WI no John Lennon murder?
- Thread starter SavoyTruffle
- Start date
He was planning his comeback in the 80s after deciding he was tired of his house-husband period. Double Fantasy was supposed to be the start of that. Its unfortunate that he didn't get the chance. There were also a lot of songs Lennon started on before his death that were supposed to be finished up but never properly were by him. These would see release on Milk and Honey. That's the reason his songs are so casual on that; they were just demos, and he wasn't concerned with being neurotic about them like he tended to be (that's why his voice was always double tracked, for example; he thought it wasn't good enough).
So his Milk and Honey material gets properly done, and likely comes out earlier I think. Songs like "Grow Old with Me", which Lennon thought would be one of those songs people played at their weddings that was a standard, would get a proper release. And Lennon would continue on through the 80s with his comeback.
Musically, I don't know how he'd develop, or how he'd feel about New Wave and Punk and Hair Metal.
Politically, he'd be anti-Reagan. Before anyone says it, yes, he supposedly may have said he would vote for Reagan against Carter, but that doesn't make him a Conservative much as the Republicans on the internet seem to really wanna fantasize he was. He was likely just pissed off at Carter, as most people who voted for Reagan were, was was against Carter and not for Reagan. Also, around this same time, he wrote a letter offering solidarity to a labor strike. He was a lefty, so deal with it.
There's plenty to bitch about concerning Reagan's America. The jobs were outsourced, factories closed down, benefits cut back, we were poking Russia with a stick, etc. I could see Lennon joining with labor against how all the factories are getting closed, and joining with the Nuclear Freeze movement. I don't see any reason Lennon would be any less a revolutionary in Reagan's America than he was in Nixon's.
So his Milk and Honey material gets properly done, and likely comes out earlier I think. Songs like "Grow Old with Me", which Lennon thought would be one of those songs people played at their weddings that was a standard, would get a proper release. And Lennon would continue on through the 80s with his comeback.
Musically, I don't know how he'd develop, or how he'd feel about New Wave and Punk and Hair Metal.
Politically, he'd be anti-Reagan. Before anyone says it, yes, he supposedly may have said he would vote for Reagan against Carter, but that doesn't make him a Conservative much as the Republicans on the internet seem to really wanna fantasize he was. He was likely just pissed off at Carter, as most people who voted for Reagan were, was was against Carter and not for Reagan. Also, around this same time, he wrote a letter offering solidarity to a labor strike. He was a lefty, so deal with it.
There's plenty to bitch about concerning Reagan's America. The jobs were outsourced, factories closed down, benefits cut back, we were poking Russia with a stick, etc. I could see Lennon joining with labor against how all the factories are getting closed, and joining with the Nuclear Freeze movement. I don't see any reason Lennon would be any less a revolutionary in Reagan's America than he was in Nixon's.
Musically he would probably be an old wonder but most likely go downhill as new groups came out. Maybe he might cause a stir with some political songs against Reagan but I personally can't see him being a massive hit anymore.
And you got his politics dead on. He would end up being one of Reagan's opponents. He was the absolute opposite of what the political right was at the time.
Paul McCartney did well in the 80s, as did George Harrison. Ringo was....Ringo. And certainly many Rockers in the 80s thought he was a great artist. I think he'd be fine. The 90s are another matter, since the Beat-boys seem to have all faded during the 90s, save for the Traveling Wilburys.
I could see a Christopher Hitchens type antagonism between him and the right wing talkers. If you go back and look at the media talkers of the time, the Neocons really were so shallow. And he'd call them on BS. I refer to a Chris Hitchens/Wladyslaw Placzynski thing on TV where Placznski just kneejerk says Hitchens loves Castro just to smear him. Lennon read books all the time, and was constantly informing himself and learning. Whereas it seems like the Neocons of the 80s I've seen don't inform themselves beyond talking points and things they'd like to be true, and assume that their rightness is solid and will make up for any lack of understanding and knowing.
Last edited:
I've never really noticed them so maybe I'm just speaking from ignorance here
I confess the Beatles never were a favorite of mine so your probably right on his popularity.Hmm a televised debate between John Lennon and the Right? Now that is something I would pay to see!
Sacrilege! But I forgive you.I've never really noticed them so maybe I'm just speaking from ignorance here
Lennon's solo career, while more critically acclaimed than McCartney, was less popular. Lennon was a rocker, who did what he did and wanted it to be good, but if you didn't like it, who cares. McCartney was Pop. If Lennon slips in popularity at all, I think it'd only be to the level of someone like Neil Young or Johnny Cash, where he keeps producing as someone who just gives the finger to the mainstream, and in that way may eventually rise back to mainstream popularity again as Cash did in the 90s by being that Man in Black scary old preacher (not that Lennon would be the scary old preacher; I'm not saying he'd follow Cash's aesthetic).
There is another factor, which is the Beatles reuniting. And that seems like it actually could have been a possibility for the 80s.
This is the era of C-Span and CNN so its very likely something will happen at some point.
I'm just a music heathen
Well I will admit I did like some of his solo work so his evolution over the years might have actually made him a favorite of mine. That is something that would spin my world
But in all seriousness if he did adopt something similar to Cash's style but kept his image I think he would have done a wonderful job at revolutionizing the industry. I will hand it to him he was a very resourceful writer.
The possibility of that has intrigued me from time to time. Though talking to my friends who are Beatles fanatics they say it was ASB because of Yoko. Now I'm not sure whether this was bile or fact but it made for some interesting conversations!
That would be a wonderful thing to watch.
Tovarich
Banned
The Beatles open and close Live Aid
Status Quo would still open, "Rockin' All Over The World" being the reason they got that job in the first place.
The Beatles open and close Live Aid
Sorry, but if his last interviews are anything to go on, that wouldn't happen, even if the Beatles actually reunite. Lennon said in no uncertain terms that he was against charity concerts. Of course, there's a five year difference, which could conceivably change his mind.
Another thing, which isn't much of a musical thing so much as a pop cultural thing, is that John Lennon might play the part of Dr. Stephen Falken in War Games. Granted, I've never actually seen that movie, so I leave it to those who did to say what adding Lennon to the mix there would mean.
Realistically speaking? Not much changes. By 1980 time already left Lennon behind. Breaking up the Beetles pretty much ruined them individually. With luck he might get to be as big as McCartney who, while well known wasn't close to being as popular as when he is with the Beetles. His political influence would be near zero. It was the 80s not the 60s and the political influence of singers was a shadow of what it was then. There would be no debate with right wingers as he could be safely ignored. The only way he would have political influence is to decide music was his past and stand for parliment. He woud start out as a back bench MP with a lot of publicity. If he handled it well he might gain some influence but would more likely be eaten for breakfest by people who played the politics game for decades.
He was one of the most influential and biggest musicians of his generation, and indeed the 20th century.
Its like asking if Mozart lived longer. It may not alter Austrian geopolitical history, but it will have an effect. And with Lennon, we more easily know what comes after the change to history.
If Mozart lived we might have a few more operas, if Lennon lived a few more songs but nothing of any real importance would have changed.
That's more operas than we had to his legacy in actual history, and his influence on history and music because of what he did do before he died was major, so the effect of anything more would also be major.
If Lennon lives, its the same thing. He is a major influence on music. What he does will be lasting and major. And all the people and musicians he touches and interacts with will change history. Imagine the Beatles reuniting, or the McCartney-Michael Jackson relationship expanding the include John Lennon too. Imagine him interacting with this musician who goes on to write this major hit song because of a lunch the two had in 1982.
Music would have changed. We won't see Jesse Jackson elected President or a Polka revival, but it does have an effect which touches a lot of thing. Some we can know, some we can't.
He releases a number of records through the 1980s, ranging from pop to the self indulgent to unique takes on current musical trends. These attract a mixture of acclaim and criticism, what with the lack of death induced hagiography.
He generally eschews politics in favour of more personal themes, following the trend of the Double Fantasy era; he is older and quite different to his radical chic dalliances of the early 70s. He disappoints those who are looking for a radical figurehead, as well as suprising some others.
In the course of doing so, and as part of ordinary life and development, some of the illusory gloss and myth of the 60s and 70s starts to gradually disappate; he is viewed as a musician, with human foibles and human good qualities, rather than something more than that.
The more people see of their idols as real people, the less magical they seem.
The tide of nostalgia pushing towards a Beatles reunion and the new tracks of the mid 1990s does not occur in the same fashion.
He dies of lung cancer in the mid to late 1990s, which doesn't give the same tragic legacy as several bullets did in @. No one really remembers where they were when the news comes in, as it happens on the same day as a major natural disaster
He generally eschews politics in favour of more personal themes, following the trend of the Double Fantasy era; he is older and quite different to his radical chic dalliances of the early 70s. He disappoints those who are looking for a radical figurehead, as well as suprising some others.
In the course of doing so, and as part of ordinary life and development, some of the illusory gloss and myth of the 60s and 70s starts to gradually disappate; he is viewed as a musician, with human foibles and human good qualities, rather than something more than that.
The more people see of their idols as real people, the less magical they seem.
The tide of nostalgia pushing towards a Beatles reunion and the new tracks of the mid 1990s does not occur in the same fashion.
He dies of lung cancer in the mid to late 1990s, which doesn't give the same tragic legacy as several bullets did in @. No one really remembers where they were when the news comes in, as it happens on the same day as a major natural disaster
I don't think Lennon would receive high levels of criticism like what Bob Dylan did in the 80s phase of his career or anything like that. His one real failure was "Somewhere Over New York", which really shook him because before then the critics always loved him. I think that had the effect of making him watch his butt a bit. I think the 80s output will range from acclaim to good/ok at minimum. That may be a lot to say, but the man is a Beatle, and one of the best musicians of the 20th century no doubt.
He will be older and wiser, and more introspective on where he is and what life is like now that he's 40. He'll still be a fighter though. Up until he died, he and Yoko were still fighting the fight. He said of the 80s, for instance, he thought it could be a period of revolution like the 60s, and that the 70s were maybe just a nap. That doesn't sound like a man who has turned his back on being an activist.
I also don't think the gloss comes off or the nostalgia wears off or whatever its said to be, because I don't think what makes him popular and liked is that. I think that's too cynical a view we have now, where anyone who is liked is just liked out of nostalgia or because we wear rose tinted glasses. Lennon was liked, truly, by millions of people. Not because of illusion, but because they genuinely liked him, and thought he was someone special. That didn't go away or fade in the 16 years since the world learned his name, so I don't expect it to suddenly go away knowing him another 16 years or 20 years or 30 years.
It's important to note that we do forget the flip side of his time, which is that while millions loved him, he was always getting in trouble for saying something because he spoke his mind. And while millions loved him, the Conservatives hated him. That sometimes gets lost. He wasn't universally loved, but he was loved.
I expect a Beatles reunion in the 80s though, and not for it to be in the 90s, since Lennon did seem like he longed for it. On a quick note, I'm not sure I'd call the Beatles love nostalgia, because it didn't subside or go away, or stick with one generation while another didn't have it to a reasonable degree; from 1970 right up to 1980, people were still waiting for them to get back together and asking them if or when.
Whether he gets cancer, I can't know. Cigarettes do lead to it, but its not necessarily going to be the case. And certainly the other Beatles smoked as well. The only one to have it was George Harrison, who developed throat cancer much later.
He will be older and wiser, and more introspective on where he is and what life is like now that he's 40. He'll still be a fighter though. Up until he died, he and Yoko were still fighting the fight. He said of the 80s, for instance, he thought it could be a period of revolution like the 60s, and that the 70s were maybe just a nap. That doesn't sound like a man who has turned his back on being an activist.
I also don't think the gloss comes off or the nostalgia wears off or whatever its said to be, because I don't think what makes him popular and liked is that. I think that's too cynical a view we have now, where anyone who is liked is just liked out of nostalgia or because we wear rose tinted glasses. Lennon was liked, truly, by millions of people. Not because of illusion, but because they genuinely liked him, and thought he was someone special. That didn't go away or fade in the 16 years since the world learned his name, so I don't expect it to suddenly go away knowing him another 16 years or 20 years or 30 years.
It's important to note that we do forget the flip side of his time, which is that while millions loved him, he was always getting in trouble for saying something because he spoke his mind. And while millions loved him, the Conservatives hated him. That sometimes gets lost. He wasn't universally loved, but he was loved.
I expect a Beatles reunion in the 80s though, and not for it to be in the 90s, since Lennon did seem like he longed for it. On a quick note, I'm not sure I'd call the Beatles love nostalgia, because it didn't subside or go away, or stick with one generation while another didn't have it to a reasonable degree; from 1970 right up to 1980, people were still waiting for them to get back together and asking them if or when.
Whether he gets cancer, I can't know. Cigarettes do lead to it, but its not necessarily going to be the case. And certainly the other Beatles smoked as well. The only one to have it was George Harrison, who developed throat cancer much later.
Last edited:
Lennon's contribution to music was effectively behind him. If you concede that the survival of John Lennon would not have geopolitical repurcussions, then why had you suggested otherwise.
The thing is, the Rolling Stones are still around from roughly the same era as the Beatles. The Stones still put out albums, but it's hard to see exactly how they still make groundbreaking contributions for music. THe same could also be said of the two surviving former Beatles members.
What are you basing this on? What I've read indicates that Lennon was more tolerant of the idea by 1980, but there's a big difference between "more tolerant" and "seemed like he longed for it."