 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.57.37.236
In Reply to: Let It Be posted by LWR on November 24, 2006 at 07:59:41:
Ms. Ono, the crasping, shameless, self-promoter, inserting herself like a barnacle. Is there a version of this video where she is digitally deleted?
Follow Ups:
Give me rhythm or give me death!
... for the teen and pre-teens markets.
Their catchy pop-dance songs were always their best.The cracks had appeared before John ever met her. The band were kids who had lived a nightmare and grown up.
I haven't read their thoughts on it. But I find it hard believe that any of them would have much to complain about.I think they moved beyond pandering to the 12-14 year old crowd before they broke up.
Their catchy pop-dance songs were always their best.
I agree.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
... even I am not sure how far my tongue is in my cheek.
From what I have read and been told, the life of your average mi-60s London pop star was one of semi-permanent refugee like camps outside their front doors (and remember the apple scruffs who took up residence outside the Apple offices) near riots at any instant they were in public and all this at the time of maximum expansion of drug use.
Let's put it this way... after the split they didn't go back.
I think they were older and worn out. Look at Lennon's life afterwards, becoming a house husband (after the drunk years) and Macca's retreat into... well enter term of choice here depending on taste.
The fall-out of the 60s (Clapton, Winwood, Moon, Townsend, Richards, and that's just a bunch of obvious first division Londoners) was a mess of major proportion."you don't mind getting high, boy, but good god coming down".
...
It was all her fault.
Intesting responses to my "avatar of superfluity" post. I am not trying to rehash the history of the breakup. I am only thinking, what the heck is SHE doing in the middle of Beatles' recording session -- especially during filming? It seems to me a bit uncouth, and certainly inconsiderate to those involved. I can't help but react to it, simply on a personal level, even after all these years. Sorry if I bored some of you sophisticates.
aaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuhhhh.
Keep up the good work.
Well, part of this is that it would seem that he didn't give a damn what anybody else thought, and it was allegedly his band, after all. Now, I'm certainly not going to put myself in the ridiculous position of defending Yoko Ono's music, most if not all of which I have no use for. But, as to what she was doing there? Perhaps because John Lennon wanted her to be there? If that doesn't make sense, remember that they'd already done the Two Virgins album prior to the Let It Be sessions.At the time, to most people and especially Beatles fans, the problem with Yoko's presence was her atonal wailing. But at this point it seems to me that complaining about that atonal wailing--which is a little different than yr post--is an exercise that's just a tad obvious. It's akin to 'disco sucks' posts. And, like 'disco sucks' posts, these tend to have little to do with aspects of music beyond the, uh, obvious.
In certain musical circles that John Lennon admired--John Cage, et al--Yoko Ono was taken seriously as a musical figure, albeit an avant-garde one. I'll hazard a guess that Lennon felt he'd left his art behind, didn't want to be in the Beatles anymore, and wasn't crazy about McCartney running the show as he was at that time, if he was going to be there. So her being there makes sense to me, in spite of how unpleasant & useless her music is to my ears.
She may have been a self-promoter, but as little use as I have for it, one can make a reasonable case, if they feel it's worth their time, that she pioneered & helped invent something we know today as 'performance art.' To suggest that she 'inserted' herself like a 'barnacle' doesn't help to explain Revolution 9, Life With The Lions, the Dirty Mac, or Live Peace In Toronto, either. Lennon saw to it that she shared stages with Eric Clapton, Keith Richards, Frank Zappa, and Chuck Berry. But he knew of her work with the Fluxus movement, even if the audiences did not.
The woman had musical credentials involving individuals most Beatles fans had never heard of at the time, and the resulting misunderstanding and disgust seems like a wedge out of the Beatles for Lennon as much as anything else. The 'Lennon Remembers' interview delves into quite a bit of this stuff. Yr post reads like it's coming from someone who's never read it. If I'm wrong about that, and if I appear like some sort of 'sophisticate,' then I'm truly sorry to have offended yr sensibilities. Otherwise, it's something I'd consider a must-read for any & all Beatles fans, a long interview conducted by Jann Wenner personally in 1970, and the most revealing & extensive interview John Lennon ever did. I think that if you read that, look at some of his artwork, listen to the direction his music went in ('I Am The Walrus,' etc.), and think about Yoko Ono's accomplishments by that time, I think you might look at all this a little differently.
You have not offended my sensibilities at all. Heck, this is just a rock 'n roll forum. However, there was a slight note of condescension in your dismissal of my initial post as "this kind of crap." That's fair, too. We're all here to kind of mix things up and have fun. But that was what prompted me, somewhat fascetiously, to term you a "sophisticate."I do appreciate your thoughtful follow-up, though. And I have to admit, I have never been a fan of Ono's.
I think it's a bit of a strectch to confer her with "musical credentials." Could she play and instrument? Not to my knowledge. But correct me if I am wrong. Did she have any prior musical experience as a performer before she "met" John? (Paul says she first tried to insinuate herself with HIM.) Could she sing even? About well enough to be the target of a well-aimed shoe. It may be that her caterwauling was in the tradition of aleatory music composers like Cage, but she added nothing to it. Her rather outrageous vocalizations, in my opinion, we simply a ruse that she knew would garner her more attention, an activity that seemed to be her chief preoccupation. And to compare her to atonal modernist composers like Ives or the great Stravinsky is, well, let's just say it's unwarranted.
I didn't know that she was instrumental in 'Revolution 9," which is an interesting experimental recording. That's impressive in itself. But let's also remember that Lennon and the Beatles were already headed well down this road as early as Revolver and Sgt. Pepper, which pre-date her "involvement." As to Lennon's development as a lyricist, and "I am the Walrus" in particular, I think these psychedelic and surreal elements were already clearly present prior to John's association with Yoko. In fact, I would argue that Lennon's lyrics became much more pedestrian after Ono arrived. The Plastic Ono Band album is compelling and raw, but it has none of the flair, lyrically or musically, as Lennon's previous work. By the New York City album with the Elephant's Memory Band, he has become a somewhat banal social critic, instead of a poet. However, if, as you say, she took Lennon in a new direction lyrically, I would have to concede the point. Even so, though I am no scholar of her OWN lyrics and poems, those I have come across strike me as rather trite, kind of Hallmark meets Allen Ginsburg.
What she was, at least to my thinking, was a publicity stunt artist. And in this regard, she had great talent, and great success. She managed to turn herself, and John, into social Messiahs of the 60's protest movement. I see her influence on John in lyrics like "Woman is the Nigger of the World" and "Give Peace a Chance." Raw, obvious, and superficial, yet pertinent to the times -- and tailored, I might cynically suggest, to a ready-made late 60's youth who taken it as an article of faith that all protest and change was good. It was the perfect perscription for the notortiety that I believe she sought so relentlessly. But her success in becoming a counter cultural icon was due to her association with and her ability to influence Lennon -- no mean feat. It was not something her own talents would ever have afforded her.
Did she love John Lennon? Did he love her? I have no doubt. But you can't blame some of us for being offended by her presence at the "Let it Be" sessions, and even offering suggestions and criticisms of the other Beatles' performances, as has been reported. It's like one of your buddy's girlfriends showed up on poker night and told everyone to put out the cigars and play a few hands of Old Maid because she thinks it's more fun.
I believe, when Lennon died, Ono was left the wealthiest woman in the United States, and in complete control of John's estate. Julian, Lennon's son from his first marriage, was ultimately forced to sue to win a share of the estate. But then, Yoko always meant business, didn't she?
Well...'this kind of crap' pretty much sums up how I feel about those sorts of queries at this point. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about why Lennon might've wanted her there, but, more to the point, if he wasn't 'allowed' to bring her, she wouldn't have been there. But it had always been considered 'his' band. McCartney had taken the reins to an extent. Maybe he didn't like that. Maybe he did want to do something to offend the others so he could leave in some way easier than just walking out. I don't know, and I don't know who does. The only answer to the question that makes any sense, though, is that he wanted her to be there. If he didn't, then one would think there would've been some speculation at some point over the past 4 decades that she figured her way in...like a 'barnacle.' But it looks more like she was an invited guest.
> I think it's a bit of a strectch to confer her with "musical credentials." Could she play and instrument? Not to my knowledge. But correct me if I am wrong. Did she have any prior musical experience as a performer before she "met" John?I have read in many places that she did receive classical training in piano, and AMG says that she was also schooled in opera. I don't remember exactly where I read this, but she was supposedly a music teacher in the NYC Public Schools in 1956. On Wikipedia there's a mention of something I'd seen somewhere else, that she was involved with a collaboration with Ornette Coleman in the early 60s. And she put on a musical performance in one of Carnegie Hall's smaller rooms, not the main hall, but still...all of this before the Beatles had a recording contract.
Having read stuff like this is part of what leads me to wonder why people still put forth this, as I put it, 'crap.' Another part is what I heard on 'Rock Lobster,' which is a detail Lennon was careful to point out in one of his later interviews, probably the one he did in Playboy in late 1980 (which is probably the 2nd best Lennon interview I ever read). On that rec you can hear her vocal stylings newly interpreted, and there are others that offer variations. Now, I'm not a big B-52's fan, and I think 'Rock Lobster' would be just as well off without the shrieks. But it's part of what makes that song what it is, and if that's not a direct influence, I don't know what is. But hell, Serge Gainsbourg did pretty much the same thing on Histoire Du Melody Nelson, which is the best album of his that I've heard. I could give two shits for the B-52s, really, but Gainsbourg is a guy with a body of work I think is significant...which is something else that may place me firmly into 'sophisticate' territory. I don't care. THAT guy was the shit, and while it doesn't have to mean anything at all, it can't be denied: he was copying Ono-style vocals, in 1971, on what I think is a great rock album in a time when I don't think there was a lot of great rock music.
> Her rather outrageous vocalizations, in my opinion, we simply a ruse that she knew would garner her more attention, an activity that seemed to be her chief preoccupation.Which brings us to the concept of the role the con plays in any & all of the forms we collectively refer to as 'art.' From what I've come to understand about Jackson Pollock, he considered his work (his most noteworthy work) to be a con on a certain level, and was consumed with loathing and self-loathing because he couldn't accept taking himself or his work seriously. And his artistic legacy was succeeded by a gang of people who created stuff that, I think, could reasonably be considered a con on some level. Warhol comes to mind, of course. But what nobody seems to take into consideration is that there was a time when Yoko Ono & Andy Warhol were, relatively speaking, contemporaries. Peers. Which has nothing to do with music, of course, but she ran in circles with a lot of artists...who might on some level be considered 'con' artists. Uhhh...did you ever read Lennon's "In His Own Write?" Maybe not a con, perhaps that's harsh. But it's certainly not straightforward, and I think it could be reasonably described as 'eccentric.' Beyond his Beatles songs, he possessed plenty of artistic conceits that could invite all sorts of colorful ways to describe them. His bond with Ono makes a lot of sense to me.
> to compare her to atonal modernist composers like Ives or the great Stravinsky is, well, let's just say it's unwarranted.Probably, but I never made that comparison, and never would. Instead, I'll bore you with a lengthy, but necessary aside.
A few years ago, on another board, someone was complaining about how Zappa must've had to feel, being on that stage with Yoko Ono, something along those lines. You know, he's this great musician & artist, and she was a noisemaking hack, blah blah. I poked around & realized a six-degrees-of-separation link that adds just a bit of perspective to this discussion, which, honestly, I tire of, but always feel compelled to participate in, due to the sorts of attitudes that seem to lurk behind the sorts of posts I was referring to. Anyway--Zappa, as many know, collaborated with Captain Beefheart, perhaps most notably on Trout Mask Replica. Beefheart, a little later on in his career, employed a guitarist named Gary Lucas. Lucas had a band called Gods & Monsters, from the 1980s, I believe, up to the present. The drummer in that band was & I believe still is, a guy named Jonathan Kane. Who has been involved in quite a few avant-garde-type projects himself, including an outfit called the Forever Bad Blues Band. Its leader is LaMonte Young, who in 1960 had quite a bit to do with the concerts & other Fluxus events that took place in Yoko Ono's loft...this is of course a pointless retelling of something that had once occurred to me, and was confirmed with a few seconds of research.
Stravinsky, Ives? Perhaps not. Musical credentials? I say yes.
> I didn't know that she was instrumental in 'Revolution 9," which is an interesting experimental recording.Well, I don't know that for sure, either. But it makes sense that Lennon followed his muse more specifically once he had forged a bond with someone who shared it more than Beatles fans would perhaps like to admit. Based on his hookup with Ono in early 1968, it makes some sense that her influence had something to do with his decision to place that recording on a Beatles album, at least to me. That said, I think he may have wanted to make experimental recordings like that previously, and I might've read something that indicated that he actually had, but that's a BEATLES record. That's quite a jump.
> let's also remember that Lennon and the Beatles were already headed well down this road as early as Revolver and Sgt. Pepper, which pre-date her "involvement."That strengthens my point: the earliest 'experiment' in a non-pop, unconventional sense that I hear (outside of the Christmas records) is the backwards vocals at the end of 'Rain,' which was a B-side in June 1966. Revolver was a couple of months later, but I think Lennon's experiments were far less conventional than 'Love You To' or 'Eleanor 'Rigby': the backwards guitar lead on 'I'm Only Sleeping' (which might've been George Martin's idea for all I know), and, of course, 'Tomorrow Never Knows.' Lennon's still the guy with the most experimental stuff, so far as I can tell, up through 'Magical Mystery Tour': Sgt. Pepper is McCartney's, yeah, but I haven't let go of my suspicion that his awareness of SMiLE was a big factor--and when it comes to experimentation, to my ears, it has nothing on 'Lucy In The Sky,' 'Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite,' and, of course, 'A Day In The Life.' A few months later there's 'I Am The Walrus.' Point being, he was stretching out more than any of the other Beatles, being more experimental, and, in retrospect, it makes sense that he reached out to someone who was more like-minded artistically than the partner who was offering up stuff like 'Hello Goodbye' and 'Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da.'
Taking everything into consideration, is it a coincidence that the latter toon is on the same rec with Revolution 9?
> In fact, I would argue that Lennon's lyrics became much more pedestrian after Ono arrived.
Now that I have to disagree with. 'Happiness Is A Warm Gun' more 'pedestrian'? Than what? 'Julia?' 'I'm So Tired?' 'I Dig A Pony?' I don't think the lyrics are weak on 'Come Together' OR the 'Ballad Of John & Yoko.' Yeah, there's a tune like 'Everybody's Got Something To Hide,' but there's also 'Cry Baby,' and it's not like there wasn't a throwaway or two Lennon had managed in the past.
> The Plastic Ono Band album is compelling and raw, but it has none of the flair, lyrically or musically, as Lennon's previous work.I'm not sure why it's supposed to. It's a different kind of record than anything he'd ever done before. It makes sense that a guy who writes stuff like 'In My Life' wanted to make a deeply introspective record. I hear it as more of an expression of emotion rather than the sort of storytelling on something like 'A Day In The Life' or 'Norwegian Wood,' or 'No Reply.' I certainly don't see the problem with the production, and it reminds me of Rick Rubin's work with Johnny Cash--and the Neil Diamond record from last year, as well. In other words, appropriate. As for the statement it makes, I think it might just be the single best 'singer-songwriter' album I've ever heard, at least as good as anything Dylan ever did, and flat-out better than anything I can name by other guys I admire--as a single, cohesive, album-length piece of work. I'm surprised you'd feel that way about it, but to each his own. Of course there are single tracks here & there that rank among my favorites, but...this is an album. And for the type of album it is, I've never heard anything better.
> By the New York City album with the Elephant's Memory Band, he has become a somewhat banal social critic, instead of a poet.Or, as a friend of mine once put it, 'musically tapped out by 1972.' So who takes Some Time seriously? After that it's a matter of picking through the filler for an occasional gem. Which would describe most recording artists, with precious few exceptions, over the past several decades. And even those whose ratio of gems to filler is excellent tend to decline over time, or at least go through peaks & valleys. Lennon had an 8-year run from 'Please Please Me' through 'Imagine' that to me is better than anyone else, period...even though this or that person might seem better to me at this or that aspect of songwriting or music-making. Now, we could argue that all day long, and I probably listen to other people more frequently these days than I dig for late-period Beatles or the solo Lennon recs...but he was a guy who was interested in music beyond 'She Loves You,' and beyond 'Tomorrow Never Knows,' and if it was his band, I say he'd certainly earned the right to invite whatever wacko lunatic he was having sex with directly into the studio where a Beatles session was taking place. As for Elephant's Memory...I have no idea; I can only surmise that he wanted to work with a functioning unit, rather than a bunch of studio hacks thrown together like on all his other albums. Nor do I have much to say about her lyrics. Or art, for that matter. Like I said, I won't put myself in the position of defending it. My point is, he saw something there, and, apparently, so did a lot of other people, hence what I describe as her musical 'credentials.' But I did pose a question in the last post, and, assuming the claim that she collaborated with Ornette Coleman is true...how many Beatles fans do you really think knew who he was in 1969?
> What she was, at least to my thinking, was a publicity stunt artist. And in this regard, she had great talent, and great success. She managed to turn herself, and John, into social Messiahs of the 60's protest movement. I see her influence on John in lyrics like "Woman is the Nigger of the World" and "Give Peace a Chance." Raw, obvious, and superficial, yet pertinent to the times -- and tailored, I might cynically suggest, to a ready-made late 60's youth who taken it as an article of faith that all protest and change was good. It was the perfect perscription for the notortiety that I believe she sought so relentlessly. But her success in becoming a counter cultural icon was due to her association with and her ability to influence Lennon -- no mean feat. It was not something her own talents would ever have afforded her.
I agree completely.
> But you can't blame some of us for being offended by her presence at the "Let it Be" sessions, and even offering suggestions and criticisms of the other Beatles' performances, as has been reported.Yeah, I kinda can, but only because I'm sick & tired of hearing about it. Does anybody actually think that the Let It Be Sessions would've gone any better if she hadn't been there? They had to be there at, what, 6 in the morning to film? Rehearsing & recording under film lights? Sure seems like the only one who actually wanted to be there was McCartney. Ringo had already quit once, and Harrison quit during these sessions, briefly, over something I'd guess had more to do with McCartney than Yoko Ono. But, hell, I wasn't there, so what do I know.
Whatever the circumstances, she'd performed in a building called "Carnegie Hall" before they did, and had worked extensively with a guy (Young) who played a significant role in the development of the early music of people like Lou Reed & John Cale (who was Young's collaborator in the Dream Syndicate). That she's credited with having worked with so many avant-garde weirdoes, well...there's a flipside to that: if you work with someone, and it goes well, doesn't it follow that you continue working with them? Her collaborations were, apparently, short-lived, and probably for a reason. Not the point. You still have to bring something to the table to get people who have developed reputations on the basis of their work, typically, to work with you; and, presumably, you learn or at least take something away from the experience of working with them. If she knew nothing, then it would stand to reason that there would've been some voices over the past several decades decrying her as a no-talent, dilettante, whatever. It's reasonable to assume that someone who did study classical piano and opera did indeed know something about music, and, therefore, was not hopelessly out of place in a music-making situation, especially if brought there by the leader of the outfit in question.
> It's like one of your buddy's girlfriends showed up on poker night and told everyone to put out the cigars and play a few hands of Old Maid because she thinks it's more fun.Poor analogy. If it's poker night, it's at John Lennon's house, and it's with his consent that those terms are laid down. I mean, the Beatles were a ROCK band. What were string players doing at those Eleanor Rigby sessions anyway? Well, of course, they were hired hands. They had no input into the creative process. With Let It Be, Lennon obviously WANTED her input. And it's HIS band. And you as a Beatle fan are irritated by this? I don't have to like what the artist wants, what they want to achieve, or how they do it...but I have to accept it. So if you want to be 'offended' by that, that's fine...but I'll judge the work on its own merit as I perceive it. Otherwise you're getting into judging the person, and when it comes to Lennon, that can be complicated. And, to me, pointless. I care about the music. With Ono on board (regardless of whether or not she actually influenced the music), you have his contributions to the White Album & every Beatle record after that, plus the solo recs up through Mind Games. I have dozens of artists in my collection who could never dream of that sort of resume, even taking into consideration the Two Virgins/Zapple nonsense, side 2 of Live Peace In Toronto, the occasional crappy single like 'Power To The People,' AND the lousy Some Time.
I think it's beyond dispute that she's a shark, given her business acumen, what she did to grow Lennon's wealth, and with a healthy mean streak, given her treatment of Julian Lennon, at least that which has been reported. But I'm not disputing that she's a self-promoter, perhaps to the point of shamelessness, that she's a pretentious wad who transitioned throwaway concepts & half-baked 'ideas' into something we're forced to call 'art' even if we think it's a load of crap...simply because of the nature of the definition of art, which is...that it can't be defined. Which is enough to wave a white flag at her & say she's an artist. One that captivated the leader of the Beatles & is still blamed for the band's breakup (although Anita Pallenberg, interestingly, placed the blame on Linda Eastman). Lastly, to finish off this monster of a post, I'll put forth the opinion that had McCartney not forced the Let It Be sessions, the Beatles might've remained a unit, albeit looser, with perhaps no Abbey Road in their future, but a bunch of records that might've been put together as the White Album was: with each song featuring the main songwriter, and the other three 'merely' a backing unit. Less in the way of collaboration. A few years ago I made a CDR of songs from each of the first one or two Beatles solo albums (with the exception of the painfully obscure ones that nobody ever talks about, like Ringo's Sentimental Journey, et al), and found that I liked the idea that the best tunes from records like Ram, All Things Must Pass, Imagine, etc. sound like they could've been a White Album, Mark II. Actually, I have to say I like it more than the Let It Be/Abbey Road combo that was the actual path they followed. So in that I have to sort of, kind of blame McCartney for the breakup. Not that it matters. I just get tired of this 'Yoko sucks' stuff after all this time. We know...but it doesn't hurt to look at the big picture. There might be something that might just surprise someone...
Once again, thanks for your thoughtful comments and sharing your perspective on this issue. I enjoyed reading your response, though, as you might imagine, I am not totally persuaded. I can't address all of your points, though I might pose a few counter points.It is my opinion that her so called experimental "vocalizations" are given far more credit than they deserve. Ever here of a song called "Surfin' Bird" by the Trash Men? That was 1963. But I have to admit, Yoko's imitation of a Rock Lobster is the best one I've ever heard. (Just kiddin'!)
Incidentally, I think the B-52's are enormously talented. I'm surprised you are somewhat dismissive of them. They had a unique style, and quirky, wonderfully satirical lyrics. Their output was certainly uneven, but they produced a number of real gems.
I know you didn't quite compare Ono to Ives, et al. But you referred to John Cage as an atonal composer, which, to my mind, is not quite true. Cage was a proponent of the idea of alleatory music, which is to say, music by chance or accident. It might be said that Ono's music, when she actually made it, was accidental, but this is not quite the same thing. (Sorry, just kiddin' again.) But to the main point. I threw Ives and Stravinsky in because they are viewed as atonal and polyrythmic composers. Though the result of Cage's musical approach was sometimes atonal and polyrythmic, this was not actually his aim.
Your references to Ono's early musical credentials is interesting. These are things I didn't know and will certainly endeavor to find out more about. However, in the end, they strike me as somewhat thin. After all, she has left behind no body of work that many people are taking seriously, or even listening to these days. (But then, they walked out on "The Rite of Spring" in Paris in 1913.) And I think this is where I would disagree with your analogy to Pollack and Warhol. Whatever one might think of their work, they each left behind a substantial body of material that garners great critical attention. Warhol, though, like Ono, had a flair for self-promotion and knew the importance of running with the right crowd. It's an intriguing comparison in this light, and I wonder to what degree Warhol's great successes and his tactics might have influenced someone like Ono -- but this would be pure speculation on my part. As an aside, on Pollack's score, I can say that I have seen a number of his canvases first hand, and they are absolutely stunning. But I digress.
Finally, with respect to the kernal of our differening view, whether or not Ono was an overweaning barnacle or a valued collaborator and companion, I guess it all depends of your perspective -- i.e., whether you are looking at it from John's perspective or the perspective of a Beatle's fan. John could take her just about anywhere he damned pleased. That doesn't make it right. And, I would add, taking your girlfriend to the office is always, on some level, a bit indecorous. Ono will always seem shameless and inconsiderate of the other members of the band, at least to me.
John Lennon, as an artist, was doing just fine thank you before he ever heard the name Yoko. Ono was laboring in near obscurity until she met Lennon. It is clear, too, that Ono used her relationship with Lennon for her own personal aggrandizement. I guess you can't blame Lennon in the end for being complicit in this. But don't be so hard on those of us who, after seeing a clip from the "Let it Be" sessions with "the great interloper" present, shutter a bit.
My pleasure. I'm glad that you were at least able to see where I was coming from. Trust me, as I've previously mentioned, I have no great interest in defending Yoko Ono...I just have a problem with the attitudes pointed in her direction on this topic. If we as fans object to her presence, our issue should be with the person who brought her there--not her. And on that basis, I'd say that if anyone should be digitized out of this or that Let It Be clip, it should be Lennon, because he didn't want to be there.> It is my opinion that her so called experimental "vocalizations" are given far more credit than they deserve.
What credit? Who's giving her credit? 99% of what I've seen consists of the super-obvious observations that her atonal caterwauling is unlistenable noise. And maybe 1%, of which I am a reluctant member, either defend her, with some actually enjoying what it is that she does, and some of us who know that this is just a distorted view & think the record should be set straight. So the credit I've assigned her based on what I've read is only presented because I think it's a necessary part of the discussion, not because I have much interest in lauding her work.
> Ever here of a song called "Surfin' Bird" by the Trash Men? That was 1963.
Cool, Daddy-O, but give a listen to 'Little Girl' by John & Jackie, 'Woo-Hoo,' which is currently on those Vonage commercials (though I think it's the 5.6.7.8.s version from Kill Bill), 'Lawdy Mama' by Edgar Blanchard, 'She's My Baby Doll' by Terry Clements & the Tune Tones, some Screaming Lord Sutch shrieks like the one on 'Til The Following Night,' 'Oop Shoop' by Big John & the Buzzards...or a variety of other trashy r&b/rockabilly howlers with insane vocals that you can find on reissue labels like Crypt, where 'Surfin' Bird' is, well, just another novelty. If you want to get even more eccentric, then why not Slim Gaillard? However, all this is stuff that shouldn't really be compared to Yoko Ono, least of all the Trashmen. The Ramones' cover of Surfin' Bird provides perspective on that tune, as well. Yoko shrieked, and, in that Carnegie Recital Hall performance that's documented, apparently had sounds during the performance such as miked flushing toilets.
Some call this art. It ain't for me, but I don't dispute it. And when someone invariably crawls out of the woodwork to lambast someone like me for not making judgments, that this stuff is the Emperor's New Clothes, blah blah blah, all I can say is that I'm certainly not afraid of making judgments, but I refuse to impose them on others. So, what Yoko did was either art, music, film, performance art, whatever, or it wasn't. I say it was, and her laundry list of collaborators is nothing to be sneezed at. Like I said, I don't think you're going to get someone like Ornette Coleman to play with just anyone, even if all she's doing is shrieking. He wasn't exactly playing Percy Faith himself.
> Incidentally, I think the B-52's are enormously talented. I'm surprised you are somewhat dismissive of them.Decent singles band. I like Strobe Light, Private Idaho, et al. Just not exactly my cup of tea. I far prefer the Ramones & other NYC punk, the Clash & Pistols, Buzzcocks, Jam & Damned & other UK punk from that era, Elvis Costello, and, when I'm in that mood for the quirky stuff, Devo. Or, hell, this or that Talking Heads record. Among the new wave eccentric types I'd rather hear a Lene Lovich single, or something like the Rezillos. But that's just me. I don't deny the B-52's, it's just a little off from my primary area of interest.
But any way you slice it, that's a DIRECT Yoko Ono influence on those vocals. Anyone who isn't willing to admit that has no business complaining about her vocals in the first place. And I certainly wouldn't recommend Serge Gainsbourg to someone fitting that description.
> I know you didn't quite compare Ono to Ives, et al. But you referred to John Cage as an atonal composer, which, to my mind, is not quite true.No, I didn't, actually. I wouldn't have been able to put into words anything resembling a reasonable definition of what Cage did, and what you wrote actually seems to make sense. But I never made that connotation. On a good day, I might be able to string some words together that would've approached yr characterization. On...not a good day, I might've merely waved it off as a bunch of half-assed conceptual horseshit that captivated many musicians I admire in ways I'll never understand. But I guess there was something to it, even if I'm not willing to spend the time to try to see what Lou Reed saw in him, or John Cale, or Lennon for that matter.
> As an aside, on Pollack's score, I can say that I have seen a number of his canvases first hand, and they are absolutely stunning.Oh, yeah. I'm a big fan. I saw some of the drip paintings at MOMA about 10 years ago, in an exhibit that featured a good cross-section of his earlier work, and a re-creation of the shed he worked out of on his property out in Springs. I wrote more about him in my reply to Dave C. There's a malcontent who comes to this site & pisses a lot of people off in doing so, and he rails about 'The Emperor's New Clothes' and how modern art is a bunch of bullshit, and in many respects I agree with him...but not on Pollock. Interesting character, interesting work, which captured something beyond a dead canvas propped up in front of a googly-eyed museum-goer. A guy with an idea that I admired, and, what's more the ability to execute it to its fullest potential.
> Finally, with respect to the kernal of our differening view, whether or not Ono was an overweaning barnacle or a valued collaborator and companion, I guess it all depends of your perspective -- i.e., whether you are looking at it from John's perspective or the perspective of a Beatle's fan. John could take her just about anywhere he damned pleased. That doesn't make it right. And, I would add, taking your girlfriend to the office is always, on some level, a bit indecorous.That John could take her anywhere he damned pleased is all the justification he required so far as I'm concerned. At least as a human being. As a Beatles fan, I don't like it, but, again, I do have to accept it. And, unlike the poker analogy, this one makes more sense. But in this case, it's not just bringing yr girlfriend to the office, it's bringing in someone who you believe has expertise in the sort of business conducted in that office, who just happens to be yr girlfriend...or vice-versa, whatever. In any case, the point is that he believed her to be fully qualified to sit in on a Beatles session. It's his band, so what's not right about that? We're only fans, we don't own these people, or what they do, or the band. We can only lay anything resembling a legitimate claim to the music that we've purchased, and no matter how much our reaction to that music makes us feel that we do indeed own a stake in the band, as a group, or individuals, we didn't, and don't.
This is from the "Lennon Remembers" interview I mentioned previously:
Lennon: (referring to the "Yoko Ono: Plastic Ono Band" companion record that was recorded at the same time as the John Lennon version, with a similar cover & personnel) Nobody knows that there is a point on the first song on Yoko's track where the guitar comes in, and even Yoko thought it was her voice, because we did all Yoko's in one night, the whole session. It was just fantastic.
Rolling Stone (Jann Wenner): The whole album?
Lennon: Yeah, except for Ornette. There's a track with Ornette Coleman that was from the past that we put on to show that she wasn't discovered by the Beatles and that she's been around a few years. We got stuff of her with Cage, Ornette Coleman...We are going to put out "Oldies But Goldies" out next for Yoko.
On "screaming," which was a focal point of the Plastic Ono Band albums, done at a time when John & Yoko were involved in Primal Scream therapy, which I believe later had something to do with Tears For Fears:
Lennon: Listen to "Twist And Shout." I couldn't sing the damn thing, I was just screaming. Listen to it...don't get the therapy confused with the music.
Yoko: I was screaming...
Lennon: Yoko's whole thing was that scream. Listen to 'Don't Worry Kyoko.' It's one of the fuckin' best rock and roll records ever made. Listen to it and play 'Tutti Frutti.' Listen to 'Don't Worry Kyoko' on the other side of 'Cold Turkey.' You see, I'm digressing from mine, but if somebody with a rock oriented mind can possibly listen to her stuff you'll see what she's doing. It's fantastic. It's as important as anything we ever did and as important as anything the Stones or Townshend ever did. Listen to it and you'll hear what she is putting down. On "Cold Turkey" I'm getting towards it. I'm influenced by her music 1000 percent more than I ever was by Dylan. She makes music like you've never heard on earth. And when the musicians play with her they're inspired out of their skulls. I don't know how much they play it later...we've got a cut of her from the Lyceum in London, 15 or 20 musicians playing with her from Bonnie and Delaney and the fucking lot, and we played the tracks the other night. It's the most fantastic music I've ever heard. And they've probably gone away and forgotten all about it. It's fantastic. It's like 20 years ahead of its time.
***Now does what I was saying make more sense? I'd go so far as to suggest that it's possible that at that point in time Lennon wanted her there more than he wanted George Martin there. Elsewhere in the interview, he says that Martin developed a way for Lennon & the others to communicate with 'musicians,' specifically referring to violin parts such as on 'In My Life' (though it should be noted that Paul McCartney claims credit for the middle 8 in that song in the first revision of the Hunter Davies biography, from a 1981 interview where Paul pisses & moans about how Lennon was slowly being turned into a posthumous saint following his death). He was firmly into working with Phil Spector at the time of the interview, going so far as to say that George Martin was more 'Paul's' style of music, and that he couldn't see working with him any more. And I don't think he did. So it makes sense to me that if there was going to be someone there who was going to find a way to 'communicate' with 'musicians' in a way different than Martin, whose work was more suited to McCartney, Yoko being there makes perfect sense. The sense I get is that Lennon may well have believed that she was THE most qualified musical figure in the entire studio at that point in his musical life. Keeping in mind that he was not considered to be an exceptional instrumentalist, does this really sound so farfetched?
> John Lennon, as an artist, was doing just fine thank you before he ever heard the name Yoko.That makes perfect sense to me, but somehow I don't think he agreed with this. The sense I've always gotten is that he felt she helped to 'complete' him as an artist.
> Ono was laboring in near obscurity until she met Lennon. It is clear, too, that Ono used her relationship with Lennon for her own personal aggrandizement. I guess you can't blame Lennon in the end for being complicit in this.Completely agree.
> But don't be so hard on those of us who, after seeing a clip from the "Let it Be" sessions with "the great interloper" present, shutter a bit.Nah, sorry, I have to say 'get over it.' I think there was plenty about the guy that was crappy, but I do admire when people follow their muse, when they live their lives the way they want to (the mistreatment of his wife and child is something I find inexcusable, however), and, in his case, he did so knowing full well what his fans thought of his choices. It didn't matter to him. So I just don't see what the hell there is or ever was to shudder about.
In amongst a lot in very interesting stuff I noticed that it seems to be considered Ono had a flair for marketing herself but that until she met Lennon she was obscure. well that seems to me to be a bit contradictory.
Ono performed at the 24 Hour Technicolour Love In in London (people invited on stage to cut her clothes off) and it was at her exhibition in London where she met Lennon.
Trying to historically justify performance art hasn't a hope in hell I would think having worked with various people in that area after giving up on the music business after working with literally all those bands you mentioned bar The Jam.
One thing with that stuff is that it is of the moment. It doesn't generally even record well and film just tends to look like people standing around being bored. Which may or may not have been the case!
MInd going funny from seafood, back tomorrow...
By that logic...arguably the greatest recording act in pop music history has a contradiction in their own history, given their inability to secure a recording contract for quite some time in spite of the efforts put forth by their manager. 'Groups of guitars are on the way out,' said the man from Decca. The laundry list of record companies that turned them down was pretty long. Parlophone was a faint, last hope after their parent company had already declined.Then there was the matter of getting a record out in the U.S. Capitol was disinterested enough to pass them off to outfits like Tollie, Swan, Vee-Jay...until they saw that there was an opportunity.
I said she was a self-promoter, which is different than saying one has a flair for marketing themselves. Sometimes people improve over time, other times great artists languish in obscurity (or, like John Kennedy Toole, die prior to their work ever seeing the light of day, in his case the book A Confederacy Of Dunces), in other cases it's a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Clearly things weren't working out for her here in the States, prompting the move to the U.K. Eventually she struck gold there, and you can debate talent all you want, Jimi Hendrix had to make the exact same trip to cultivate an audience. A little more than a decade later, so did the Stray Cats. Chrissie Hynde, anyone?
So you could make that same contradictory observation towards any of these people, and in fact any act that struggled prior to success. If she was poor at marketing herself, then explain how she got Lennon to buy into what she did, and who she was; maybe she learned from years of mistakes, as many do, and had a plan that finally worked once she was in...the right place at the right time. I don't know. But what seems like a contradiction on the surface isn't always necessarily so. After all, in the summer of 1962, surely the Beatles couldn't have felt confident about their prospects when it came to securing a recording contract...right?
I can't remember any longer if Yoko was or wasn't successful, or even if she needed to be when she met Lennon, but I think your "If she was poor at marketing herself, then explain how she got Lennon to buy into what she did, and who she was; maybe she learned from years of mistakes, as many do, and had a plan that finally worked once she was in" line is a bit extreme. So in your opinion Lennon only "bought in" because of how she sold herself? If you assume her art is mere self promotion then I guess you could see that but a lot of people have considered her talented in her own right. I have no idea how half a century and more after Pollock, Warhol, yes particularly that New York down town loft set that kind of runs through from the abstract expressionists, the collective East Coast Beat writers and maybe Moondog to the post-punks still seems in some people's eyes to have to justify itself.
If someone wants to say Ono caused Lennon to become more mundane lyrically then what do they have to say about the twin influences of Dylan and drugs wearing off? Lennon's own comment was that his records were like newspapers put out quickly but if one is looking for another reason to get at Ono then I guess there's no reason to let Lennon get in the way. He was just a pawn in her hands after all. (just a woman he "was having sex with".
I am afraid that this thread is getting like to guys getting drunk at a bar and trying to work out what went wrong with relationships that finished when they were kids. As the Beatles never sang "Its all TOO LATE".
specially the stuff about the drummer.
I am not sure its particularly valid to call Warhol and Jack The Dripper (Pollock) "cons" though.
I think just suggests your interests don't lie in the art world.
Warhol at least was a commentator on consumer society and that referencing of other factors is something that "pop" music came to late but has jumped into feet first now that the sampler is such an important part of music making. But its nothing new. As soon as there was a form of writing music people wrote down existing melodies and claimed them. Beethoven quoted folk songs and never credited them.
As soon as music could be recorded, perhaps the equivalent of a print instead of a painting, it changed the art. Opened it up to more people.
Things change. Ono was a part of a time. The Vietnam War. Don't forget waht a defining event it was for those times and how after she had pushed (albeit willingly, imo) Lennon into an agit-prop political position he came out with Give Peace A Chance as a reaction to the continual talk of war.
A brilliant single and undoubtedly a very influential piece of art as suddenly the word peace was people's lips instead of war.
As an artist it doesn't get better than that, again... imo.
John and Paul were both introduced to the arty worlds by their women and I don't mean Linda...
I knew the guy a bit because years ago I used to sublease some space in an amazing old building in Little Italy, where on three sub-basement levels below the street, there were rehearsal, storage, and occasional recording spaces that were occupied by various local NYC rock bands, some of them notable (Sonic Youth), most not, but with some people tied into the avant-skronk jazz-rock scene of the Knitting Factory, the remnants of No Wave, contemporaries of Glenn Branca, people like that. Moby lived there, still might. The Beastie Boys shot a video there once. It was an old morgue, research showed, and one of my favorite buildings in the city. I don't know how many years bands were there, but they were all out by the late 90s, I believe. Anyway, I knew Jonathan a bit through that space & paid attention to his work, as he & others would come back & decorate the space with gig flyers from various avant-garde music festivals in Europe, stuff like that. So while I'd never listen to that stuff, I was aware of it.It's not so much that I think of the work/art/performance art/film/whatever produced by the likes of Ono or Warhol as a 'con,' what I said was that on some levels it could be taken that way, and for reasons that separate what they did from more traditional 'artists' or 'sculptors' or whatever. I love Pollock's drip paintings. But he was the one who apparently had a problem with his work on the basis that he thought it was a con...which ate him up because he did indeed take it seriously...to a point, where he looked at it in a different way, got loaded & bitched about how it was all a con. At least that's the impression I've gotten in my meager research on him. I do believe it's pretty solid to point to his streaks of loathing & self-loathing. I find him to be a fascinating character, and I do dig quite a bit of his work. But I do think it's telling that if you look at the stuff he did prior to getting into the drip paintings, a lot of it looks like, well, 3rd-rate Picasso-type stuff to me. That it's not well-known doesn't give me any reason to feel otherwise. I think his drip paintings are the part of his legacy that's celebrated for a reason; his early stuff is just not that good. And I think he knew it, and he was disgusted that he'd managed to find a way to captivate people's attention when he sorta wished he could've been more successful at what he'd worked at earlier on. And he either didn't see that he'd become his own Picasso, or just refused to embrace it, for whatever insecure reason. And I'm sure the drinking didn't help matters.
But I'm not anti-"art," I'm just more interested in music. But it's always good to remember that Lennon was an art student. Which means that the 'arty world' was absolutely NOT something that Yoko introduced him to. I'm not sure how much attention he paid to it while living as a Beatle in London during Beatlemania, but obviously by 1966 he was going to friends' galleries to see what was going on. He was clearly drawn back to the art world he'd turned away from to become a pop star. And Stuart Sutcliffe's death hit him pretty hard, since he knew how gifted that guy was, at least according to what we're told today. And that was his best friend. Actually, it's kind of remarkable that he focused on pop songs as much as he did, let alone cleaning up for Brian Epstein & eschewing drunken brawling (which some have suggested may have been at the root of an incident where Sutcliffe got his head kicked in, which in turn may very well have contributed to his premature death). As for Paul...you kidding around here? His woman introduced him to the art world, but not Linda? Not sure you can make that case for Jane Asher; I take it you're familiar with her background. Linda McCartney's photography? I don't know, I missed a gallery show a few years ago on the Upper East Side. I could probably find some stuff online, or perhaps at the Morrison Hotel on Prince St. in SoHo. But I'm not sure what you're driving at there.
I'm not big on Give Peace A Chance, either. If anything, the Live Peace In Toronto stands up as a better reading of the tune, in my estimation. But I just don't think Lennon did that sort of protest stuff very well. His best, to me, had nothing to do with that--I Am The Walrus, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Come Together, In My Life, You're Going To Lose That Girl, A Day In The Life, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, Baby's In Black, Remember, God, Isolation...I could go on. Give Peace A Chance ain't it. Cold Turkey's more like it. But then I've always felt politics & rock music mix extremely poorly in most cases. There are so few exceptions, and everyone points to Dylan, who did it so much less than he seems to be given credit for. Some of the punk bands did it well, particularly the Minutemen, who were certainly less obvious than an outfit like the Dead Kennedys. Phil Ochs, perhaps. I love the sound of the first Crosby, Stills, & Nash record, but boy do I hate their hippie BS. The Clash did this well, and the most recent Green Day record. No Nukes? Feh. And I just don't hear Give Peace A Chance as being much better.
Then there's Gimme Some Truth...oh, brother. They don't write 'em like THAT anymore, now, do they. Geez, I'm starting to sound like an old person. Too bad, on that particular track I'll have to take the fogey position that I loathe. Puh.
I don't think its even a case of liking something like Give Peace a Chance. Its simply communicated at a level beyond just being a song as did the Lennon-Ono's "events" such as the bed-in or the bag-in. On one level puerile stunts. But puerile stunts that were broadcast around at least half the world and that stood on the TV news next to footage of children burning from Napalm.....
I don't think Lennon cared whether or not it was going to be considered art. He was concerned with getting it considered news.
I think you can make a good case for Jane Asher introducing Paul into a certain circle especially in London.
I'll get back to you with details... its a stinky hot night and I think my sea-food was funny, if you know what I mean and I might not manage too long at the keyboard.
I have never really heard Dylan refered to as political after he wet electric. That was really a part of his "protest" days.
If you want political combined with musical try Billy Bragg or... oh hang on, time to go somewhere else...
Yoko came from a rich family.
Yoko was a prime mover in what became known as the loft scene in New York where musicians, writers and even painters would perform to a small but well connected audience literally in someone's loft.
Yoko met John at her exhibition after he climbed a ladder and found the word YES written in small letters on the ceiling.
Yoko took John's developing radicalism and showed him how to put a message over to the world.
Yoko ran the business while John looked after the kids.
J,For me, it goes *beyond* the Yoko One/John Lennon affair; it extends the the 'lovers of leaders' (as I term it) that run matters or attempt to rob the show. I'm talking about politics where the entire family of some Head of State gets heard from.
By the way, nothing wrong with being called a 'sophisticate' (I almost chose it for my moniker . .)
(Soph)
Why dont you do it in the road with your Mother of InventionPlastic Ono Band Some Where in NYC and leave your half witted critisim about a song that was a hit before your mother's baby was standing in the shadows before you were born not such a long long time ago. No son of tricky dicky mother earth soft soap sell youself you you dope You got no hope you uptight neurotic Paranoid schezophrenic Mothers little hipocritCourtesy of Dr. Winston O'Boogie with liberties taken
Groovey Records
There once was a note Pure and Easy,playing so free like a breath trickling by. It's all in one note, Just Listen!
... I'd hoped people might recognise.
I blame the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and point to smoke on the Grassy Knoll as evidence.
... or John's on it.
And I have just picked up a piece of toast with NO IMAGE OF PAUL'S SHOES on it.
SPOOKY...
You get as tired of this crap as I do, don't you?
They were great. They went through hell. They were the band around whom the market(ing) was developed but they had to do it largely unprotected. by 67 they wanted out and finally made it. None of them wanted to go back.
Now its historical. Should we bemoan that Mozart made bad friends, or that the slaves were only allowed drums. Its all in the past and we are in a different place.
In the moment it matters(or mattered) who got a record out a week earlier, but now they are all just records. and memories. And should stay that way.
the point has been moot for 26 years now anyway.
How's that, soxie?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
