I wouldn't be surprised though. When part of the Beetles he was the center of attention, on his own he was a has been.
WI no John Lennon murder?
- Thread starter SavoyTruffle
- Start date
I wouldn't be surprised though. When part of the Beetles he was the center of attention, on his own he was a has been.
Lennon was still producing mainstream, popular material throughout the 70s after the break up up till the House-Husband period, and was still an influential and popular artist. The only period where his contribution was chronologically behind him was when he took a break from recording in 1975 to 1980. And he was making his come back after his house husband period before he was shot. The 80s was the period when he was going to return to recording.
And when did I say it would effect geopolitics? I said it would effect music. That's what we're talking about.
Well, the Stones never broke ground that wasn't already tilled by someone else. But they were doing well in the 80s. As were the Former Beatles. I don't know how groundbreaking they'd be, since I don't know what ground there is to break. But I know it would have major effects on music. I mean, take anyone who was a popular act, and have them hit by a truck, and you change music. The more popular, the bigger a personality, the greater the talent, the greater the effect. And John Lennon was one of the big boys.
You may say its only music, but that's exactly what it is. If you erase a hit song or popular record from history, a notable guitar lick, a catchy beat, a lyric people know, it alters the music scene.
There was an interview with McCartney some a decade or so ago in which he discussed it.
He was not a has-been. He was consistently releasing popular material up until his househusband period where he stopped recording to raise his son, and was returning to recording with Double Fantasy, which was to be followed up for Milk and Honey.
Nothing EVEN CLOSE to what it was when he was a Beetle. By 1980 he was no longer a truly major player. How many AT40 hits did he have on his own? Not many while he had a lot of #1 hits as a Beetle.
Of course not. Sweet Zombie Jebus, they were the Beatles. No one has reached something like that. None of the Beatles individually even reached anything like that. The Beatles were bigger than anything before or since. That's an impossible expectation.
If Lennon was not a major player, it was because he hadn't recorded since 1975. He was still one of the big boys of rock, and still popular.
Yet he reached it AS A BEETLE. He never reached such heights again and I wouldn't be surprised the he missed that. When he was a Beetle he did tons of interviews and was the center of attention everywhere. On his own he was at best merely another semi-popular rock star.
EricM
Banned
The Beatles open and close Live Aid
As cool as it would have been, remember how disastrous The Led Zeppelin reunion was for that show? Though to be fair at the time no one cared because they were watching Zeppelin back together for 20 minutes.
Thats setting the bar a bit high isnt it? The beatles are one of the most popular bands in the history of music and very few music groups have outsold them. John Lennon was good but he wasnt enough to sustain that for decades.
The point is that is what he likely compared to. I think he liked being the center of attention, you don't become a big rock star if you don't. Whatever popularity he had left in 1980 it was a BIG step down from before. For us it would be a big boost but for him it was a big drop. I wouldn't be at all surprised that he missed the days when he was clearly in the #1 music band in the world!
Lennon hadn't been at the cutting edge of popular music for some time. Which album or single or performance, prior to his untimely demise, had really influenced the development of popular music?
If you take his works from 1971 onwards and remove the Lennon name from them and attribute them to Harry Brown or John Smith, then they would not have attracted a huge amount of public attention, let alone been decisively influential on the direction of popular music. I don't think that his death or otherwise would have influenced the way music was developing, as he had been completely disengaged for half a decade and well away from the cutting edge for seven or eight years prior to that. Trading off the Beatle legacy would only last so long.
Regarding his potential for political engagement in the 1980s, there is evidence from his statements and actions in 1980 that can be cherrypicked either way. Arguably, his political activism had been in hiatus since 1972/73. Even if he was motivated to become involved in a public role, the political environment was greatly changed and he would quite possibly delay any activity until Sean was older. Things are more different still in 1985 or so.
In the end, the longer he sticks around, the more the 'Beatle effect' dims, as it did for McCartney and Harrison, and as it has done for others in their own way. Getting shot didn't make him more special, but not getting shot will probably make him less special.
If you take his works from 1971 onwards and remove the Lennon name from them and attribute them to Harry Brown or John Smith, then they would not have attracted a huge amount of public attention, let alone been decisively influential on the direction of popular music. I don't think that his death or otherwise would have influenced the way music was developing, as he had been completely disengaged for half a decade and well away from the cutting edge for seven or eight years prior to that. Trading off the Beatle legacy would only last so long.
Regarding his potential for political engagement in the 1980s, there is evidence from his statements and actions in 1980 that can be cherrypicked either way. Arguably, his political activism had been in hiatus since 1972/73. Even if he was motivated to become involved in a public role, the political environment was greatly changed and he would quite possibly delay any activity until Sean was older. Things are more different still in 1985 or so.
In the end, the longer he sticks around, the more the 'Beatle effect' dims, as it did for McCartney and Harrison, and as it has done for others in their own way. Getting shot didn't make him more special, but not getting shot will probably make him less special.
I agree, by 1980 Lennon was a has been and breaking up the Beetles was the biggest mistake all of them made. They were much better as a group than they were individually.
mowque
Banned
My fiancee's thoughts-
While he might not have held political sway, he still would have had an audience to listen to his political voice. Look at Phil Collins if you need an example of an 80s musician with political inclinations that were heard and heeded. Thirdly, it's ridiculous to try to guess if his "contribution to music" was over or not. Considering that he wanted to get back into the game, and he was trying out multiple styles of music, it seems unlikely. Lastly, the two remaining Beatles who are putting out music weren't really the ground-breakers in the first place. Ringo is barely known compared to the others, and McCartney does very well with his ditties and love songs. Harrison was the main influence for Middle Eastern sounds, and Lennon was the most political.
It's silly for someone to think that a musician needs to be on "the cutting edge" in order to be influential. If that was true there wouldn't be oldies stations. Once a person has an established audience they're going to be followed. Lennon might have mellowed out, and his audience might have shrunk, but he still would have contributed.
While he might not have held political sway, he still would have had an audience to listen to his political voice. Look at Phil Collins if you need an example of an 80s musician with political inclinations that were heard and heeded. Thirdly, it's ridiculous to try to guess if his "contribution to music" was over or not. Considering that he wanted to get back into the game, and he was trying out multiple styles of music, it seems unlikely. Lastly, the two remaining Beatles who are putting out music weren't really the ground-breakers in the first place. Ringo is barely known compared to the others, and McCartney does very well with his ditties and love songs. Harrison was the main influence for Middle Eastern sounds, and Lennon was the most political.
It's silly for someone to think that a musician needs to be on "the cutting edge" in order to be influential. If that was true there wouldn't be oldies stations. Once a person has an established audience they're going to be followed. Lennon might have mellowed out, and his audience might have shrunk, but he still would have contributed.
It certainly would be interesting. I imagine that Lennon and his Music would become steadfast opponents of Thatcherism. I dare say his political actions in this may outstrip his musical output. I could see Lennon continuing to produce solo work, with occasional collaborations. I wonder what effect he will have on bowie (given the two were close friends) during his Berlin period (and subsequent coke withdrawal) It also wouldn't surprise me if he serves as a patron, and grand old man to up and coming artists such Freddie Mercury or Elvis Costello.
Having an audience doesn't necessarily make someone influential, but rather simply indicates that they can or could create a tune which does not actively repel people.
It twists the burden of proof around to characterize a contribution (which is uncontested) as influential (which implies something very different indeed) ; Lennon would not be pioneering new music, but exploring aspects of the old. He had an established niche like so many others, but that is no mark of greatness in and of itself, or we would need to extend the description of greatness to so many musicians that the word would be essentially devalued.
Whilst it is not impossible for him to return to dabbling in radical politics and funding various organizations, it would go against an apolitical trend in his life that stretched back well before his five year retirement.
A more interesting, although unlikely, twist that could see him forge new ground is writing; even that would be fairly niche. Acting is probably out, as the characters he played best were versions of himself.
It twists the burden of proof around to characterize a contribution (which is uncontested) as influential (which implies something very different indeed) ; Lennon would not be pioneering new music, but exploring aspects of the old. He had an established niche like so many others, but that is no mark of greatness in and of itself, or we would need to extend the description of greatness to so many musicians that the word would be essentially devalued.
Whilst it is not impossible for him to return to dabbling in radical politics and funding various organizations, it would go against an apolitical trend in his life that stretched back well before his five year retirement.
A more interesting, although unlikely, twist that could see him forge new ground is writing; even that would be fairly niche. Acting is probably out, as the characters he played best were versions of himself.
@ Johnrankins:
Again, Lennon was not a hasbeen. He was giving interviews all the time, and he didn't when he didn't want to. And people paid attention to him all the time, and were always asking for his autograph. When he felt like signing one, he did. When he didn't, he just said he wasn't John Lennon, but got that all the time. The reason he lived in New York even was because it was the one place he felt he wouldn't be swamped and could be left alone a bit. He also wouldn't have acted like some 4 year old "Look at me!" and return to the Beatles for that reason. He was still popular as John Lennon the John Lennon, and not John Lennon the Beatle. He may have been irked that McCartney was more popular than him, since Lennon considered his output higher quality than McCartney's pop, but that doesn't mean he wants the Beatles back together for attention whoring for himself. That's reasonable to the hasbeen myth you believe for some reason, but isn't true in actual reality. In fact, the pain in the ass attention that the Beatles got where they couldn't sleep and were always go-go-go almost led Lennon to leave the group in 1966.
Lennon would have gotten back to the Beatles because he missed the Beatles, and missed the comradery and all that. Not because he was like some baby who wanted everyone to look at him. There was no drugged up, Vegas Elvis period for Lennon. There was no pot belly, reality show period for Lennon. Because Lennon was not a hasbeen. He was beloved and popular, always on the scene, only took a break for 5 years to raise a family, and was gearing up to return in the 80s after that break.
Michael Jackson is debatable, since he is maybe the only one that came close or equal.
That's what I was trying to say, thank you.
Johnny Cash also didn't do more than explore established music, but he was amazingly influential, and not for some past, but for what he was doing in the then and now. Again, that's what Lennon is if nothing else. I don't care if he didn't invent some new synth technique. The man and his music did have an effect on the scene and other artists. Many, many artists looked up to Lennon. Many were inspired by Lennon.
And Lennon never really retired from being a fighter. And with Reagan in office and Thatcherism in England, he has a lot to protest against, and he's not going to sit back and ignore it.
Again, Lennon was not a hasbeen. He was giving interviews all the time, and he didn't when he didn't want to. And people paid attention to him all the time, and were always asking for his autograph. When he felt like signing one, he did. When he didn't, he just said he wasn't John Lennon, but got that all the time. The reason he lived in New York even was because it was the one place he felt he wouldn't be swamped and could be left alone a bit. He also wouldn't have acted like some 4 year old "Look at me!" and return to the Beatles for that reason. He was still popular as John Lennon the John Lennon, and not John Lennon the Beatle. He may have been irked that McCartney was more popular than him, since Lennon considered his output higher quality than McCartney's pop, but that doesn't mean he wants the Beatles back together for attention whoring for himself. That's reasonable to the hasbeen myth you believe for some reason, but isn't true in actual reality. In fact, the pain in the ass attention that the Beatles got where they couldn't sleep and were always go-go-go almost led Lennon to leave the group in 1966.
Lennon would have gotten back to the Beatles because he missed the Beatles, and missed the comradery and all that. Not because he was like some baby who wanted everyone to look at him. There was no drugged up, Vegas Elvis period for Lennon. There was no pot belly, reality show period for Lennon. Because Lennon was not a hasbeen. He was beloved and popular, always on the scene, only took a break for 5 years to raise a family, and was gearing up to return in the 80s after that break.
Queen is great, but they were nowhere near the Beatles in popularity or being Bigger than Jesus. Maybe bigger than St Peter.
Michael Jackson is debatable, since he is maybe the only one that came close or equal.
That's what I was trying to say, thank you.
Johnny Cash also didn't do more than explore established music, but he was amazingly influential, and not for some past, but for what he was doing in the then and now. Again, that's what Lennon is if nothing else. I don't care if he didn't invent some new synth technique. The man and his music did have an effect on the scene and other artists. Many, many artists looked up to Lennon. Many were inspired by Lennon.
And Lennon never really retired from being a fighter. And with Reagan in office and Thatcherism in England, he has a lot to protest against, and he's not going to sit back and ignore it.
Last edited:
I'm sorry but I doubt very many teens or twenty somethings even knew who he was. That is and has been since at least the '50s the most important demographic group for record companies as young people are more interested in music than middle aged and older. By your 30s and 40s you are usually married with children and have a decent job and are more worried about making a living than what the last hit single is. Whether he protests or not makes little difference. He will get attention but get little results. Most people couldn't care less what entertainers think about politics. They aren't going to stop voting Tory just because Lennon tells them not to. He will get his pictue in the papers and go on TV maybe but otherwise have little or no influence on governmental policy.
...
.....
.......
..........
Many, many, many, many teens and twenty somethings knew John Lennon. I'm sorry, but you need to understand this time period better and Lennon better, because your lack of understanding is making me 'gah!'.
And John Lennon was an influential counterculture guy and protester. People may not care about what entertainers think, but Lennon will still protest, and still bring attention to things. Getting them to not vote Tory isn't the point. Showing a Tory policy screwing over the working man is. Protesting the Tory policy screwing over the working man is.
As to the first highlighted bit, I think that's a very difficult thing to measure for any artist,whether at the peak of their popularity or not. Maybe I'm just too ignorant to notice trends. But I always have trouble arguing for direct influence. If any of his albums had any kind of long lasting influence as themselves, my guess is that it would be Plastic Ono Band, since that album seems to presage later autobiographical songwriting, but again I can't exactly draw the kind of straight line I would need to prove that. On the other hand, I can't exactly do that for any of the Beatles' works either.
I'm a bit confused by the second highlighted bit. The first half indicates that Lennon fell into mediocrity after the release of Imagine in 1971, and the second highlighter bit indicates that Lennon fell into mediocrity 7-8 years before 1975 and the math means you'd be arguing that Lennon became mediocre between 1967-1968, or in other words before the Beatles had even broken up, which is an odd argument to make, because personally aside from the consequences of Lennon's heroin addiction I don't see any steep decline in quality in 1969. But then again, I'm a fan, and of course I wouldn't notice such a decline.
If we ignore the question of influence, a lot of critics have argued that Lennon's albums declined in quality since at least Imagine, and possibly since Plastic Ono Band itself. In terms of popularity, Lennon did reach the top of the charts with Walls and Bridges, but again that doesn't mean that that was a great album. I happen to enjoy it, but again, I'm a fan. It's also arguably, aside from his work with Yoko Ono, Lennon's most collaborative work as a solo artist. He cowrites a song with Harry Nilson, and has Elton John perform on Whatever Get's You Through the Night. So you could make the argument that the album became popular on the strength of those collaborations, particularly the later one.