Yoko Ono (Discussion for Beatles Fans)

[obscurejude]

I was wondering if a mod could please grace this thread with a poll, say thank ya.'

Poll:
Did Yoko break up the Beatles?

Options:

Yes
No

Just got finished reading a biography and I'd love to talk about this in all its glorious details.

[John_and_Yoko]

I was wondering if a mod could please grace this thread with a poll, say thank ya.'

Poll:
Did Yoko break up the Beatles?

Options:

Yes
No

Just got finished reading a biography and I'd love to talk about this in all its glorious details.

I happen to be a John Lennon/Yoko Ono fan, and speaking as such, I believe that's what's known as a "loaded question."

It sounds like the sort of question asked by someone who doesn't feel the Beatles DESERVED to break up and is looking for someone to blame--and choosing Yoko as the scapegoat, which isn't accurate or fair. She was the only one who allowed John to be himself instead of what his ridiculously large fanbase WANTED him to be.

THE BEATLES broke up the Beatles--they just were four different people and wanted to go their separate ways.

[jayson]

I was wondering if a mod could please grace this thread with a poll, say thank ya.'

Poll:
Did Yoko break up the Beatles?

Options:

Yes
No

Just got finished reading a biography and I'd love to talk about this in all its glorious details.

Not in my opinion. Paul left the band. Paul couldn't work with John anymore, but he also couldn't work with George anymore and George wasn't married to Yoko so she can't be blamed for that. The truth of the matter is, the Beatles had run their course, though the songwriters hadn't. I could go on and on, but in short, no, Yoko wasn't responsible.

[obscurejude]

I was wondering if a mod could please grace this thread with a poll, say thank ya.'

Poll:
Did Yoko break up the Beatles?

Options:

Yes
No

Just got finished reading a biography and I'd love to talk about this in all its glorious details.

I happen to be a John Lennon/Yoko Ono fan, and speaking as such, I believe that's what's known as a "loaded question."

It sounds like the sort of question asked by someone who doesn't feel the Beatles DESERVED to break up and is looking for someone to blame--and choosing Yoko as the scapegoat, which isn't accurate or fair. She was the only one who allowed John to be himself instead of what his ridiculously large fanbase WANTED him to be.

THE BEATLES broke up the Beatles--they just were four different people and wanted to go their separate ways.

It is a loaded question, I'm not capable of asking any others. I was hoping loaded discussion would evolve so don't take it personal. Its a DISCUSSION. I'm not sure how you got any tonal qualities from my initial post. I left it completely open for a reason. You literally put words in my mouth, please don't do it again.

[obscurejude]

I was wondering if a mod could please grace this thread with a poll, say thank ya.'

Poll:
Did Yoko break up the Beatles?

Options:

Yes
No

Just got finished reading a biography and I'd love to talk about this in all its glorious details.

Not in my opinion. Paul left the band. Paul couldn't work with John anymore, but he also couldn't work with George anymore and George wasn't married to Yoko so she can't be blamed for that. The truth of the matter is, the Beatles had run their course, though the songwriters hadn't. I could go on and on, but in short, no, Yoko wasn't responsible.

I'm on the same page for the most part, but I found her presence at Abbey Road kind of disturbing. None of the other lads had ever had a significant other in the studio. Maybe just the tip of the iceberg, but it was about a year after this when Paul left.

On the flip side, the White Album and Abbey Road are my favorites. :lol:

[John_and_Yoko]

It is a loaded question, I'm not capable of asking any others. I was hoping loaded discussion would evolve so don't take it personal. Its a DISCUSSION. I'm not sure how you got any tonal qualities from my initial post. I left it completely open for a reason. You literally put words in my mouth, please don't do it again.

Did I get tonal qualities from your initial post?

That question has been asked so much that it's not necessarily meant in that way when it is asked, and I'm aware of it. My response's tonality was meant more for your readers than for you personally.

In other words, you put the words into my mouth, not the other way around, but I forgive you. I did come across angrier than I actually felt, and I apologize for that.

And by the way, John left the band in '69, before Paul did, but the announcement wasn't officially made until 1970.

[obscurejude]

Tone is defined as "the attitude the author has toward the words he has written."

You said:

"It sounds like the sort of question asked by someone who doesn't feel the Beatles DESERVED to break up and is looking for someone to blame--and choosing Yoko as the scapegoat, which isn't accurate or fair. She was the only one who allowed John to be himself instead of what his ridiculously large fanbase WANTED him to be."

I don't think I have anything to apologize for.

[John_and_Yoko]

Tone is defined as "the attitude the author has toward the words he has written."

You said:

"It sounds like the sort of question asked by someone who doesn't feel the Beatles DESERVED to break up and is looking for someone to blame--and choosing Yoko as the scapegoat, which isn't accurate or fair. She was the only one who allowed John to be himself instead of what his ridiculously large fanbase WANTED him to be."

I don't think I have anything to apologize for.

This will be my last word on the subject (and I never asked for an apology, by the way), but you overlooked two important words at the beginning of that paragraph: SOUNDS LIKE.

Again, I never meant to imply that you were actually doing that yourself, and I already apologized. End of off-topic.

[obscurejude]

In other words, you put the words into my mouth, not the other way around, but I forgive you.



This sort of implies that I did something wrong.

[obscurejude]

Basically folks, I just wanted to discuss the Beatles last days and why things went down like they did. Maybe you are glad the Beatles broke up, maybe not. I was hoping that we could talk about solo careers, compare and contrast, John Lennon's solo work... you know music stuff.

[John_and_Yoko]

In other words, you put the words into my mouth, not the other way around, but I forgive you.



This sort of implies that I did something wrong.

I never asked you to apologize for it, and I still don't. It really doesn't matter that much to me.

But I will not apologize for something more than once, and I was willing to let this off-topic tangent on your thread end with my last post.

Back on-topic....



I still get a rush from "Cold Turkey" all the time, and the Beatles didn't want to record that one....

[obscurejude]

You brought it up. I was writing a response to your post.. cause and effect. I'm a stickler for language, and its my thread. I also didn't want anyone else to think that I was bashing Yoko because I'm very interested in all points of view in this regard. You took offense to a question that I purposely presented in the least biased way I could think of. Hopefully there's even less ambiguity now. So, my purposes were two fold and on topic. :harrier:

[obscurejude]

Basically folks, I just wanted to discuss the Beatles last days and why things went down like they did. Maybe you are glad the Beatles broke up, maybe not. I was hoping that we could talk about solo careers, compare and contrast, John Lennon's solo work... you know music stuff.

:cool:

[John_and_Yoko]

I personally loved both of the Plastic Ono Band albums, and I know the Beatles would never have wanted to record the tracks on those.

When I'm angry, I find it very cathartic to listen to the Plastic Ono Band albums, which make use of primal scream therapy, and John was particularly mad at Paul about the breakup so he had plenty to be angry about.

And it helps to SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH along with Yoko so it's not quite so grating on the ears.... :blush:



At any rate, my point is that those albums wouldn't have existed if the Beatles hadn't broken up, and in the manner in which they did. I'm no Beatles hater, nor do I hate Paul McCartney or the other non-John ex-Beatles, but that alone is a reason why I'd LIKE to credit Yoko with breaking up the Beatles, but it wasn't her doing. ;)

[obscurejude]

I haven't heard those albums besides "Instant Karma", but I'm glad you mentioned them because I was wanting to hear about them specifically. I found it interesting that Clapton went to Canada with John during this period but I don't think a recording of that is available (I'm sure Jayson knows).

I plan on trying to listen to them in the near future. Do you recommend one over the other J and Y?

[John_and_Yoko]

I haven't heard those albums besides "Instant Karma", but I'm glad you mentioned them because I was wanting to hear about them specifically. I found it interesting that Clapton went to Canada with John during this period but I don't think a recording of that is available (I'm sure Jayson knows).

I plan on trying to listen to them in the near future. Do you recommend one over the other J and Y?

You're welcome. :) And I don't think "Instant Karma" was on either one of them....

But yeah, always happy to talk about those specifically.

If you're asking if I recommend either John's or Yoko's Plastic Ono Band album over the other, then my answer is: it depends on what sort of music lover you are.

Most people would probably prefer John's album, which has actual songs (though there is foul language in some of them, which might offend some). On the other hand, Yoko's tracks aren't really so much songs as instrumentals which simply feature her voice as one of the instruments--and experiments with its range. So if you like that idea (and don't care for John's lyrics), you might like Yoko's (though watch out for her screeching in "Why," the first track).

Personally, though, I think they were meant to go together, so I'd recommend them both. :D

[obscurejude]

I wasn't sure about "Instant Karma" but I thought it was on one of those (again, I'm not too familiar with Lennon's solo work- just getting my feet wet).

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll try to get them both after I get some others on my wish list out of the way.

By the way, that's a real good point about John not being able to make some of the music that he really wanted to while in the Beatles. John has said that after Epstein died, Paul really began to rule with an iron fist. Whether that's completely the case or not, I'm sure there is some real validity to it.

[John_and_Yoko]

I wasn't sure about "Instant Karma" but I thought it was on one of those (again, I'm not too familiar with Lennon's solo work- just getting my feet wet).

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll try to get them both after I get some others on my wish list out of the way.

By the way, that's a real good point about John not being able to make some of the music that he really wanted to while in the Beatles. John has said that after Epstein died, Paul really began to rule with an iron fist. Whether that's completely the case or not, I'm sure there is some real validity to it.

I don't know about an iron fist, but he certainly kept disagreeing with the other Beatles, and John resented him for acting as though HE were the decision-maker of the group....

And I hope you enjoy the Plastic Ono Band albums when you listen to them! :) I also have "Imagine," "Sometime in New York City," "Double Fantasy," "Milk and Honey," and "Lennon Legend."

Also, "Revolution 9" had a lot of Yoko's influence among Beatles tracks--I love that one, too (and also "Revolution" and "Revolution 1", don't get me wrong).

[jayson]

It was all a matter of three maturing songwriters who had outgrown working with each other. For their own reasons, John, Paul and George all had different directions in mind for their music. For a handful of albums they were able to effectively work together and act as essentially session musicians for each others ideas - as time went on there are clearly less "Beatles" songs and more songs that are clearly Lennon's, or Paul's, or George's for which they got what they needed out of their bandmates. This is not a bad thing, in fact most of my favorite of their songs are from this period. It just can't sustain itself forever.

Ryan, as far as their solo careers go, it's always been George that I turn to first. I'm sure I could get a debate or two from other members, but for my part, his 1970 album "All Things Must Pass" is the standout of all former Beatles' solo works. It definitely stands the test of time a LOT better than many of the other projects, good or bad, released by John and Paul. John may have written some "better" songs here and there after the Beatles, but this is a true album, and it shows what George had to offer that got passed over on many late Beatles albums [the White Album demo sessions and the Let It Be demo sessions, both of which I have, show that several of these songs had been written intended for GH to use with the Beatles, but he was only given so many songs per album]. I could talk about George all day, but I HIGHLY encourage you to get yourself that album if you don't already.

[cozener]

I voted "no". I'm sure they were growing apart anyway, personally and professionally. But also, we are responsible for our own actions. Even if Yoko contributed to the alienation of John Lennon from the Beatles it was still, ultimately, his decision.

Its like when one of your friends disappears because they find a boy/girlfriend. You can blame this other person if it makes you feel better, sure. This other person might even be actively discouraging him/her from seeing their friends (which I think is uncommon). But whose the one opting not to hang out with you?

[obscurejude]

It was all a matter of three maturing songwriters who had outgrown working with each other. For their own reasons, John, Paul and George all had different directions in mind for their music. For a handful of albums they were able to effectively work together and act as essentially session musicians for each others ideas - as time went on there are clearly less "Beatles" songs and more songs that are clearly Lennon's, or Paul's, or George's for which they got what they needed out of their bandmates. This is not a bad thing, in fact most of my favorite of their songs are from this period. It just can't sustain itself forever.

Ryan, as far as their solo careers go, it's always been George that I turn to first. I'm sure I could get a debate or two from other members, but for my part, his 1970 album "All Things Must Pass" is the standout of all former Beatles' solo works. It definitely stands the test of time a LOT better than many of the other projects, good or bad, released by John and Paul. John may have written some "better" songs here and there after the Beatles, but this is a true album, and it shows what George had to offer that got passed over on many late Beatles albums [the White Album demo sessions and the Let It Be demo sessions, both of which I have, show that several of these songs had been written intended for GH to use with the Beatles, but he was only given so many songs per album]. I could talk about George all day, but I HIGHLY encourage you to get yourself that album if you don't already.

I agree on all fronts. I'm a big George Harrison fan, including the Traveling Wilbury's :cool: I'll post more about him when I'm not so tired (just got back from Dark Knight).

[alinda]

THE BEATLES broke up the Beatles--they just were four different people and wanted to go their separate ways.[/QUOTE]

I couldnt agree more.

[Darkthoughts]

Perhaps I may be enlightened by joining in this discussion, because I am not a fan of John Lennon. Not necessarily musically speaking, although I don't highly rate much of his solo stuff (apart from Instant karma, Imagine etc - which is where I'm open to enlightenment ;) ) - more not a fan of him as a person.

I don't think it's always relevant to judge a famous persons talents on their personality or their exploits - for example, I enjoy Roman Polanski's work and all the underage girl stuff doesn't detract from his achievements as a director for me (I have more of a beef with the girl's mother, but thats another topic!) But with John Lennon, the two overlap.

I've read quite a few Beatles/John Lennon biogs, Cynthia Lennon's in particular really interested me - because although she was ultimately spurned and was therefore inclined to be bitter, its very apparent in her book that she loved him immensely, so I felt she was fairly honest in her descriptions of John.

He didn't seem like a great role model or political activist to me. I'm not very well read on him and therefore I'm always willing to stand corrected, but the protests that he made that seem to hold him in high esteem with so many fans, seem fairly trite to me. He never actively made a difference, like say Mohammed Ali who funded schools etc, and it wasn't like he couldn't afford to. Anyone could sit in bed with their wife all day to make a statement, but what - aside from publicity for his image - did it really achieve?

If I'm misinformed...please fill me in :D

[alinda]

Ispent some of my mis-spent youth in NYC working with a little
known band called Elephants Memory, and I may be biased toward
John as a polictial activist..."Sometime in NYC" was such a trip..
songs like Woman is the nigger of the world come to mind. Those days
were a trip. Johns lost weekend lasting slightly longer :lol: J & Y's bed-in
and troubles with the FBI (etc)...aside the music was raw, and loud, just
like us.

[obscurejude]

Perhaps I may be enlightened by joining in this discussion, because I am not a fan of John Lennon. Not necessarily musically speaking, although I don't highly rate much of his solo stuff (apart from Instant karma, Imagine etc - which is where I'm open to enlightenment ;) ) - more not a fan of him as a person.

I don't think it's always relevant to judge a famous persons talents on their personality or their exploits - for example, I enjoy Roman Polanski's work and all the underage girl stuff doesn't detract from his achievements as a director for me (I have more of a beef with the girl's mother, but thats another topic!) But with John Lennon, the two overlap.

I've read quite a few Beatles/John Lennon biogs, Cynthia Lennon's in particular really interested me - because although she was ultimately spurned and was therefore inclined to be bitter, its very apparent in her book that she loved him immensely, so I felt she was fairly honest in her descriptions of John.

He didn't seem like a great role model or political activist to me. I'm not very well read on him and therefore I'm always willing to stand corrected, but the protests that he made that seem to hold him in high esteem with so many fans, seem fairly trite to me. He never actively made a difference, like say Mohammed Ali who funded schools etc, and it wasn't like he couldn't afford to. Anyone could sit in bed with their wife all day to make a statement, but what - aside from publicity for his image - did it really achieve?

If I'm misinformed...please fill me in :D

I have some very similar thoughts and/or concerns. Many people feel the bed in for peace was just a plug for Yoko's concept art. In other words, it looked the part but offered very little substance. Most of the political activism of John Lennon's that I've been exposed to seems far too unrealistic, utopic in a bad way. Mailing acorns to world leaders and telling them to plant trees instead of bombs doesn't really do a whole hell of a lot, but because it was John Lennon, it got all sorts of exposure.

Notice that I said, thoughts and not conclusions. I'm still trying to give John a chance, but its hard for me to look past some of it. Cynthia was a difficult thing for me to read about too Lisa. There's an aspect where Yoko presents an outlet for John to be the "real" artistic genius he always wanted to be, but there's another aspect that seems like maybe she hijacked the little bit of decency that was still there.

[jayson]

I have some very similar thoughts and/or concerns. Many people feel the bed in for peace was just a plug for Yoko's concept art. In other words, it looked the part but offered very little substance. Most of the political activism of John Lennon's that I've been exposed to seems far too unrealistic, utopic in a bad way. Mailing acorns to world leaders and telling them to plant trees instead of bombs doesn't really do a whole hell of a lot, but because it was John Lennon, it got all sorts of exposure.

Notice that I said, thoughts and not conclusions. I'm still trying to give John a chance, but its hard for me to look past some of it. Cynthia was a difficult thing for me to read about too Lisa. There's an aspect where Yoko presents an outlet for John to be the "real" artistic genius he always wanted to be, but there's another aspect that seems like maybe she hijacked the little bit of decency that was still there.

When it comes to artists, I generally don't give too much consideration to what kind of people they are in their personal lives. Many of them seem to be complete assholes, and not people I'd want to spend a whole lot of time around, but I try to keep that separate from my thoughts about their art. Look at it... Miles was a complete asshole to just about everyone. Charles Mingus pimped out almost every woman he was involved with. Charlie Parker was a selfish junkie who caused all manner of grief for those he was involved with. Jimi slept with Betty Mabry when she was married to Miles. Clapton stole George Harrison's wife. etc, etc etc. Ultimately, they're all just human beings.

Bringing it back to the specific topic at hand, from everything I read, Lennon wasn't exactly a pleasure to be around either, and it would also seem he was a lousy husband not just to Cynthia, but for many years, to Yoko as well. Yoko gets cast too quickly as the villain in many stories about John, and I'm sure in some cases the reports are accurate, but I don't think she sapped him of his decency. In the final tally, I think she was a more positive
influence on him than negative.

As to the public campaigns for peace, I agree that they in and of themselves may not affected specific change, but I'm not sure that was their intention. I think the purpose of the Bed-In and the other things they did was to use Lennon's influence to give a voice to the issues they cared about. It was about awareness. When you think about it, it's a little sad that people don't care about things until rock stars tell them to care, but that is the way it is sometimes. Lennon decided to use that to spread a message he cared about. When it comes down to it, whether or not they actually changed anything, there are worse things to dedicate your time to than talking about peace. If the question is to their sincerity, I don't doubt that their feelings were genuine. Considering the political climate at the time (ie. Nixon being President) John was putting his immigration status at considerable risk involving himself with some of the causes he did. He'd likely not have done this unless he felt the risks were being made for a legitimate reason.

[obscurejude]

Jayson, points taken and I appreciate them. Like I said, I'm trying to give John a chance and haven't made any real decisive decisions.

I don't have time before work to go into my philosophy about artist and their artifacts, but I'm very different from you in this regard. I don't like the dichotomies, and that kind of bifurcation of the soul is one of the things that I associate with modernity and notions of "Art for Art's sake." I've argued vehemently with Wilde in several papers. Most of my answers are similar to Mathew Arnold's polemical prologue to his 1854 edition of poems. In my view, art of expression should be subservient to an underlying action or cause, i. e. defined moral impressions (Aristotle).

Basically, it does affect my views on people and sometimes I do have trouble enjoying their music. If Clapton didn't make some real changes in the last 20 years, I wouldn't esteem him as I do (also, him and George wife-swapped before Clapton ever "fell" for Patti. The rampant extramarital affairs of the 60's are not something I praise, but Claptons subsequent actions are not all that surprising).