Lennon or McCartney?

[uncutAR]

lennon by far was much more talented

 

[Flashy]

As an artist I can answer that...
here's the difference...

McCartney produced a huge body of work, but in listening to all of it... I have no idea what the man is like.
He has left us no clear impression of himself, of what moves him, of what he believes.

Lennon, on the other hand, left an indelible impression of his true character, both the positive and negative aspects...
And beyond that, his body of work describes to us the arc of how he was changed by the world around him...
We come away from Lennon's work with an intimate understanding of the man.


That is why Lennon's death prompted such a vigil, whereas Harrison's did not


McCartney can bang out a great tune... but his most compelling work was done as a Beatle, with Lennon writing the edgy, emotional bridge.
Lennon would take a sappy love song and give it a twist, exposing the pain, the longing, or the despair inherent in love.

And it is clear in McCartney's post Beatles music how much influence Lennon had on McCartney's creative output, and vice versa.

McCartney's subsequent work lost most of its edge and nuance.
While Lennon's lost much of its musical polish and pop appeal, but Lennon never lost the deep emotional honesty.

I think there is no doubt they did their best work as a team, each driving the other in the areas in which they were weak and supporting each other with their strengths.
( McCartney and Lennon both have commented that, even in writing songs without the other's input, they were each striving to impress the other)

And I am not saying McCartney is not a talented musician working in the arts...

But the difference between Lennon's work and his is like the difference between Hemingway and John Grisham, like the difference between Picasso and Normal Rockwell.

When it comes to art, Rockwell was well loved, but Picasso defined what art was to become.
Grisham is poplar and widely read... but Hemingway defined the future of what great writing would be.

They both created musical art... but Lennon's was far more emotionally impactful... and that is what makes art great.

And Lennon's art extended outward from music, into poetry, cinema, protest and social activism.

I remember the billboard, all across america... War is Over if you want it

Where the fuck has McCartney been in moving a generation?

God how I wish Lennon had lived.... Iraq would never have been invaded with him to call on our consciences...

as much as i love and admire lennon, phil, before you ascribe too much conscience to him, remember, this is a man who virtually abandoned his first son and moved to New York to escape British taxation.

as for Iraq never having been invaded had he lived, well, sorry, that is pie-in-the-sky dreaming.

as an aside, when i was 8 years old, (summer of 1980) i happened to be walking through central park close to the west side, with my mom and we were returning from the Museum of Natural HIstory, when lo and behold, John Lennon waltzed by on one of his park strolls, the trademark shades on and everything. i still remember it vividly....quick stride, head down, seemingly deep in thought....right near what would become strawberry fields, close to Central Park West and the Dakota.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

as much as i love and admire lennon, phil, before you ascribe too much conscience to him, remember, this is a man who virtually abandoned his first son and moved to New York to escape British taxation.

Flashy... hemmingway was an abusive alcoholic, Picasso, a relentless womanizer... what the fuck does any of that have to do with art?

I am not saying Lennon was perfect or without hypocrisy or internal conflict.

Quite the opposite... WHY Lennon is the greater artist is because he DID suffer from self interest, from hypocrisy and ignoble motive.


You bring up his divorce... He knocked a girl up in an age when you HAD to marry her... And his agent demanded that he keep this marriage secret as an aid to PR.... He traveled all over as one of the most famous and sexually sought after men in the world- in his 20s.- How many of us would have handled THAT without fault?
By the time he stopped touring, and the beatlemania subsided a bit, he was estranged from his wife and child ... barely even knew either of them...

And yet... he did not hide from us any of his personal demons, his failings nor his struggle to deal with them.

What you need to understand is that NONE of us are perfect. Especially in the 60s and 70s we were all struggling with and against our own upbringing.
The rise of Feminism and the civil rights movement, the drug culture, the sudden expansion of media into world wide coverage in real time...

We were all coming to grips with our prejudices and faults...
And Lennon was right there with us... one of us... and he was laying it all out in the open... all the pain, anger, sorrow...
His personal arc of self discovery... of having to accept and apologize for his own failings as a father, as a husband... and doing so publicly thru song.

What you try and tar him with are the very aspects that made his art great.

BTW- Paul was going thru all the same shit as the rest of us- but you would never know it from his work.

as for Iraq never having been invaded had he lived, well, sorry, that is pie-in-the-sky dreaming.

Perhaps so... but you have to remember how effective Lennon was as helping to end the vietnam war.
Those billboards MATTERED. His bed-ins had effect.

he railed against the violence of the weathermen, and the idea of revolution and sought to convince us all that peace was simply a choice we had to make, collectively.

You may call it pie in the sky... but I feel certain that a 60 year old John Lennon, resident of NYC, in the months after 9/11, coming out and calling on all the people of this nation to remember vietnam... to remember that the anti-war movement was right and noble... to remember our own youthful ideals and not succumb to the fear mongering of the Republicans in power...
I think he would have gotten coverage, even by the corporate media... I think he could have tipped the balance of the argument toward PROOF of Iraq's 'connection' with al queda, and made a loud enough stink about the lack thereof.

He was the imperfect but well intentioned conscience of a generation...
And that generation was the one in power at that time..

We would have heard him and we would have listened.

 

[Flashy]

Flashy... hemmingway was an abusive alcoholic, Picasso, a relentless womanizer... what the fuck does any of that have to do with art?

I am not saying Lennon was perfect or without hypocrisy or internal conflict.

Quite the opposite... WHY Lennon is the greater artist is because he DID suffer from self interest, from hypocrisy and ignoble motive.


You bring up his divorce... He knocked a girl up in an age when you HAD to marry her... And his agent demanded that he keep this marriage secret as an aid to PR.... He traveled all over as one of the most famous and sexually sought after men in the world- in his 20s.- How many of us would have handled THAT without fault?
By the time he stopped touring, and the beatlemania subsided a bit, he was estranged from his wife and child ... barely even knew either of them...

And yet... he did not hide from us any of his personal demons, his failings nor his struggle to deal with them.

What you need to understand is that NONE of us are perfect. Especially in the 60s and 70s we were all struggling with and against our own upbringing.
The rise of Feminism and the civil rights movement, the drug culture, the sudden expansion of media into world wide coverage in real time...

We were all coming to grips with our prejudices and faults...
And Lennon was right there with us... one of us... and he was laying it all out in the open... all the pain, anger, sorrow...
His personal arc of self discovery... of having to accept and apologize for his own failings as a father, as a husband... and doing so publicly thru song.

What you try and tar him with are the very aspects that made his art great.

BTW- Paul was going thru all the same shit as the rest of us- but you would never know it from his work.

Phil, are you ever not completely furious & totally overboard about *EVERYTHING*

I never questioned Lennon's artistry, you loony.

yet you respond with gems like this:

"what the fuck does any of that have to do with art?"

"What you try and tar him with are the very aspects that made his art great."

-

I have not tried to tar him at all....you're last line of your previous post said this:

God how I wish Lennon had lived.... Iraq would never have been invaded with him to call on our consciences...

I responded with this...on the topic of his *CONSCIENCE* not his *ART*

"as much as i love and admire lennon, phil, before you ascribe too much conscience to him, remember, this is a man who virtually abandoned his first son and moved to New York to escape British taxation."

that does not smear his art and evading taxes, i would think, is something you thought very poorly of, based on past interactions here. As such, whatever political conscience he claimed to have, would be tarnished a tad by his unwillingness to pay taxes to the country he was a citizen of.

you have some really serious aggression issues phil, that make it nearly impossible to have reasonable discourse with you.

Perhaps so... but you have to remember how effective Lennon was as helping to end the vietnam war.
Those billboards MATTERED. His bed-ins had effect.

LOL...come on dude....of course his activism is laudatory, but to suggest how "effective" he was, as opposed to an already growing groundswell of popular opposition to the war is silly....all US troops were out by 73 and major fighting ceased in April 1975. the "War is Over" signs went up in 1969 IIRC.

the bed in for peace was march 1969 (first one IIRC)
the second one was in June 1969 (when they recorded give peace a chance)

so if he was that effective, you have to imagine it would have not taken 4 more years.

he railed against the violence of the weathermen, and the idea of revolution and sought to convince us all that peace was simply a choice we had to make, collectively.

which is rather naive...after all, let's face it...peace is not simply a choice....Lennon himself was born right in the middle of the Nazi Blitz of Liverpool. the city was blacked out and his mother, in labor, had to find her way to the hospital by the light of bomb explosions as she ran two miles or so.

not much choice there.

You may call it pie in the sky... but I feel certain that a 60 year old John Lennon, resident of NYC, in the months after 9/11, coming out and calling on all the people of this nation to remember vietnam... to remember that the anti-war movement was right and noble... to remember our own youthful ideals and not succumb to the fear mongering of the Republicans in power...

1. yes, the anti-war movement was right and noble...for Vietnam...but in the wake of 9/11, if he had come out against going to Afghanistan and hunting down the Taliban and Al Qaieda, people would have been furious and rightly so.

2. he would have had a legitimate gripe about the Iraq campaign, but sorry, still do not think anyone would have listened to him.

I think he would have gotten coverage, even by the corporate media... I think he could have tipped the balance of the argument toward PROOF of Iraq's 'connection' with al queda, and made a loud enough stink about the lack thereof.

I think you greatly overestimate the leverage he would have had...he did not tip the balance in the Vietnam protests, and a 62 year old musician, in the spring of 2003 would not have made a difference either.
After all, Dylan didn't, Springsteen didn't, Madonna didn't, and dozens of other famous musicians combined didn't make a difference.

He was the imperfect but well intentioned conscience of a generation...
And that generation was the one in power at that time..

yes, perhaps...on some issues. certainly responsible parenting and adherence to tax laws, though, were not part of his conscience,...artistic merit (of the highest order) aside

We would have heard him and we would have listened.

very doubtful. the 60s are long gone. It is easy to ascribe monolithic and supreme, well-intentioned powers to the remarkably talented, who have died young, sadly. But it is close to 30 years now since he has been gone....and let's face it...John Lennon is not held in the highest reverence by the younger generation...in fact, sadly, he is more of a memory of an artistic quality which has long since escaped the interest of younger, less intelligent musical fans, let alone younger "thinkers".

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Phil, are you ever not completely furious & totally overboard about *EVERYTHING*

I never questioned Lennon's artistry, you loony.

Yes you did... You implied that his personal faults detracted from his artistry.
I pointed out that great artists are the ones who reveal their faults... and who demonstrate that they wrestle with them.

I responded with this...on the topic of his *CONSCIENCE* not his *ART*

Conscience is not doing the right thing... conscience is the ability to recognize and fess up to doing the wrong thing. To make ammends. To say we were wrong.

Your direct implication that his failings impugn his conscience is simply wrong.

The fact that we even KNOW of his failings PROVES his conscience.
What do we know of McCartney's failings? Not a damn thing. As far as we know he never had a moment of self doubt.

Certainty is the absence of conscience.

that does not smear his art and evading taxes, i would think, is something you thought very poorly of, based on past interactions here. As such, whatever political conscience he claimed to have, would be tarnished a tad by his unwillingness to pay taxes to the country he was a citizen of.

I disagree. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Lennon was a resident of the US- he was fighting being taxed TWICE, and the idea that his only interest in being in the US was to evade British taxation is ridiculous.

you have some really serious aggression issues phil, that make it nearly impossible to have reasonable discourse with you.

Actually, Flashy, it seems you are the one who is the contrarian and who has anger issues. Nobody who knows me thinks I am angry... they mostly comment on how nothing seems to make me angry.
of course, in arguing via text, you can not hear my laughter, nor that I enjoy being called names as much as I enjoy calling names...

LOL...come on dude....of course his activism is laudatory, but to suggest how "effective" he was, as opposed to an already growing groundswell of popular opposition to the war is silly....all US troops were out by 73 and major fighting ceased in April 1975. the "War is Over" signs went up in 1969 IIRC.

You don't know what you are talking about- you are too young and were not a part of it. yeah- there was protest all over the US... By 1968 that protest was turning violent. Lennon actively opposed such violence and many in the counter culture movement adopted his Revolution as an anthem for peaceful protest.

BTW I lived in San Francisco during that time. One of the epicenters of revolt. BTW, my brother joined the Air Force in 1973 to keep from being drafted into the army, cause we were still in Vietnam- ( he got a low draft number )

You see no correlation to the war is over campaign and the bed ins, and the give peace a chance campaign... that actually ran from 1969 thru 1971 and the US gradually pulling out of that war...
But in any advertising company- that would seem like a strong correlation of impact on public opinion.

Enough for Nixon to target Lennon on his enemies list... I recommend you to the documentary the US vs Lennon if you want a clearer picture of the impact Lennon had and how strongly the government acted to counter him.

so if he was that effective, you have to imagine it would have not taken 4 more years.

Really? That's your argument? How long do you think it takes to change public opinion?
Bush was re-elected four years ago... how long has it taken for Americans to realize the war is a stupidity?

which is rather naive...after all, let's face it...peace is not simply a choice....Lennon himself was born right in the middle of the Nazi Blitz of Liverpool. the city was blacked out and his mother, in labor, had to find her way to the hospital by the light of bomb explosions as she ran two miles or so.

not much choice there.

Sorry, Flashy- but that is a false dilemma. There is no way of even remotely comparing WWII to either vietnam nor Iraq.

The US was not attacked by either Vietnam nor Iraq. We made a choice.
The US prosecuted WWII as a national enterprise with a singular focus.
Both Vietnam and Iraq have been more about supporting defense contractors and political posturing than achieving any specific military objective.

1. yes, the anti-war movement was right and noble...for Vietnam...but in the wake of 9/11, if he had come out against going to Afghanistan and hunting down the Taliban and Al Qaieda, people would have been furious and rightly so.

I disagree. I did not say he would have opposed Afghanistan. I think we had just cause to go after the taliban.
As a New Yorker I think he would have been eager to see them taken out.


But we didn't get the taliban, did we? Didn't get Bin Laden? No, our government abandoned effective action agaisnt the folks that attacked us and took advantage of a cynical opportunity to siexe oil fields.
And they did so by lying.

In the months leading up to the war Bush relied upon the media being too timid to ask the hard questions for fear of being accused of being unpatriotic.. But they could have justified covering Lennon due to his fame.
And I think someone with his history who commanded the sympathy of that generation... calling foul on lies and pure imperialism would have had effect.


You can disagree... but you didn't live thru the 60s and 70s with him... you have no idea how folks of my era feel about him.

I think you greatly overestimate the leverage he would have had...he did not tip the balance in the Vietnam protests, and a 62 year old musician, in the spring of 2003 would not have made a difference either.
After all, Dylan didn't, Springsteen didn't, Madonna didn't, and dozens of other famous musicians combined didn't make a difference.

Dylan did not actively protest the vietnam war- and Springsteen may be a hero to a younger group of folks, but he was nothing but a rocker to the baby boomers.
Again- you have no idea of the effect the man had. War is Over and give peace a chance proliferated... I wore t-shirts with those slogan on them all thru high school graduating in 75.
Registration for the draft was ended two weeks before my 18th birthday...

Seriously... I am sure he would have had little effect on YOU... but the people between 45 and 65 in 2001... those were the folks gathering with candles in every major city in the world in 1980.

yes, perhaps...on some issues. certainly responsible parenting and adherence to tax laws, though, were not part of his conscience,...artistic merit (of the highest order) aside

You and your tax laws.... the man paid his taxes... the US government persecuted him for his opposition to the war.
When the government goes after you for speaking out... you are having an effect.

I don't give shit what you would have thought of him protesting an Iraq invasion...
The people who control the media would have given him air time, because they are all old enough to know who he was.

The effective public protesters from that era are all either gone... or tarnished by their association with extremist groups.

Lennon was perhaps the only one whose consistent adherence to peaceful protest and effective use of his own celebrity and fortune to publicize his message has held the test of time.

Jane Fonda undermined her credibility by posing on a commie gun.

Lennon could have stood up and said his protest, then, was right, was righteous and was necessary.
He never stood with the reds... never sided with the domestic terrorists...
He simply reminded us that we had the capacity to be better.

Sorry, Flashy- if you don't recognize the stature of the man, you just don't know what a man of conscience is.

 

[b.c.]

This is why I avoided involvement in threads re. M.J. - because they immediately degenerated into discussion of his personal issues rather than that of his undeniable effect as a artist upon our music and culture.

We all have our demons, the difference being that, for celebrities, they are too often in full view of the scrutiny and speculation of an ever voracious public.

Too often is the tendency for one to forget that these are not saints nor heroes -only performers, artists perhaps... (and I know Phil wasn't implying the former).

Regardless of all that other bullshit, my position is that both Lennon and McCartney have in their own way, and for perhaps different reasons earned their rightful place in the annals of world music.

 

[Flashy]

Yes you did... You implied that his personal faults detracted from his artistry.
I pointed out that great artists are the ones who reveal their faults and who demonstrate that they wrestle with them.

NO, i did'nt. Point out where i said that. now you are so smart you know what i am thinking without even saying it? Christ Phil, you truly could start a fight in a convent.

there is a difference between one's *CONSCIENCE* & one's art.

As usual, you claim to know what everyone else is even thinking & still know better

You can't accept that as great an artist as Lennon was, he was hypocritical

Conscience is not doing the right thing conscience is the ability to recognize and fess up to doing the wrong thing. To make ammends. To say we were wrong.

Your direct implication that his failings impugn his conscience is simply wrong.

conscience is the ability to recognize & fess up to doing the wrong thing? like preaching about no possessions from the Dakota, where you kept a separate apartment just for you & your wife's fur coats? preaching about greed while driving a Rolls? preaching about love while being an abusive husband? He never said he was wrong.

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for *greed* or *hunger*
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
*Sharing* all the world

i love Lennon the artist, but sorry, talking about "no need for greed or hunger" & sharing, while you are trying every trick possible to keep all your money out of the hands of your government, which pays for folks who were hungry & on the dole is a tad hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

he didn't want to share. he wanted all his $$$, which, when i've said the same, you've accused me of greed & selfishness.

The fact that we even KNOW of his failings PROVES his conscience.
What do we know of McCartney's failings? Not a damn thing. As far as we know he never had a moment of self doubt.

Certainty is the absence of conscience.

we know plenty of McCartney's failings & self doubt, beginning with the death of his mother when age 12

not a moment of self doubt, huh? like when his 1st girlfriend & fiance of 3 years, lost their baby?

or when he was engaged to Jane Asher, but broke it off for an affair?

or when he signed on to an ad for legalizing cannabis in England? or when he admitted to LSD use? or when he was arrested in tokyo in 1980 for pot?


yeah. no problems, no failings, no self-doubt.

I disagree. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Lennon was a resident of the US- he was fighting being taxed TWICE, and the idea that his only interest in being in the US was to evade British taxation is ridiculous.

perhaps it is you who does not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

Lennon didn't receive his alien residency or "green" card until 1976. 5 years after he moved permanently.

he wasn't "fighting being taxed twice' (strange you have such trouble with that, considering the current situation here)

he was dodging British taxes from the time they started Apple. If you had the slightest idea, you'd remember a time when virtually all Brit musicians were living abroad, to keep from paying british taxes.


Until 1968 when they formed Apple, they paid massive UK taxes. Lennon said this about Apple: "It was really just a loony tax scheme, Our incomes would be hidden. Then the money would be moved around."

conscience eh? kept right on doing it, no admitting he was wrong.

he was avoiding British taxation the whole time he lived here.

Actually, Flashy, it seems you are the one who is the contrarian and who has anger issues. Nobody who knows me thinks I am angry. they mostly comment on how nothing seems to make me angry.
of course, in arguing via text, you can not hear my laughter, nor that I enjoy being called names as much as I enjoy calling names.

i said you had aggression issues, Phil, not that you had anger issues. Maybe you have reading issues too.

You said i criticized Lennon's art, when i never did. i questioned his conscience due to his hypocrisy.

and yes, I tend to be more contrarian. that does not change facts.

since you "enjoy calling people names" as much as "being called them", i'd say you have some serious confrontational issues, always spoiling for a fight, no matter how small the matter.

You don't know what you are talking about- you are too young and were not a part of it.

thank god. i can't imagine being as badly dressed as the people in the 60s were.

yeah- there was protest all over the US. By 1968 that protest was turning violent. Lennon actively opposed such violence

yes, Lennon actively opposed such violence, unless it was against a wife, or British Soldiers in Northern Ireland.

Here is Lennon, "opponent" of such violence, marching for the IRA *POST 1969* holding a copy for support of the "Red Mole" who totally backed the IRA paramilitary campaign *FACT*

http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/john-lennon-red-mole-ira-radical.jpg

So, Phil, don't try & deny it. Lennon was very cozy with the International Marxist Group & Don't say i'm linking him to those false lies about him donating to the IRA & WRP. I'm not. I use facts.

many in the counter culture movement adopted his Revolution as an anthem for peaceful protest.

hm yes, well, i think Gandhi beat him to the peaceful protest theme by a few years.

You see no correlation to the war is over campaign and the bed ins, and the give peace a chance campaign. that actually ran from 1969 thru 1971 and the US gradually pulling out of that war.
But in any advertising company that would seem like a strong correlation of impact on public opinion.

nope. sorry. i see no correlation. sitting in bed & growing your hair did not correlate to the US pulling out of Vietnam.

Enough for Nixon to target Lennon on his enemies list. I recommend you to the documentary the US vs Lennon if you want a clearer picture of the impact Lennon had and how strongly the government acted to counter him.

i saw it. Still not impressed. Just because Nixon targeted Lennon, doesn't mean much. Who didn't Nixon or the FBI target in the 50s & 60s? They were afraid to deport him because of the youth vote's possible reaction in 1972. So? troops did not pull out fully till 73 & pressure building on US involvment, was not the result of Lennon. He played a part, as did millions in the anti-war movement.

Really? That's your argument? How long do you think it takes to change public opinion?
Bush was re-elected four years ago. how long has it taken for Americans to realize the war is a stupidity?

i don't know Phil, how long does it take to change public opinion?

Public support for LBJ, ostensibly because of Vietnam, was at around 33% when he left in Jan'69. A majority of americans had begun calling Vietnam a "mistake" by 1968. before Lennon ever sat in bed.

In 1970, 56% said Vietnam was a mistake. It reached as high as 61% before direct American involvement in the war ended in 1973.

so basically, even if everything was directly attributable to John Lennon as sole inspiration himself, it would mean he accounted for a 9% gain in people deeming the war a "mistake" over 3 years.

sorry, no dice.

Sorry, Flashy- but that is a false dilemma. There is no way of even remotely comparing WWII to either vietnam nor Iraq.

sorry phil, it is not a false dilemma. war is war. If peace is a choice, then one should choose peace at all times, in any situation. You either buy in to pacifism & non-violence, or you do not.

The US was not attacked by either Vietnam nor Iraq. We made a choice.
The US prosecuted WWII as a national enterprise with a singular focus.
Both Vietnam and Iraq have been more about supporting defense contractors and political posturing than achieving any specific military objective.

LOL, you had been making a bit of sense, up until you went to the "supporting defense contractors". LOL & don't go into your screed about the Iraq war enriching companies producing major weapons systems. i already killed that bogus claim of yours months ago, when you failed to respond to my facts about Lockheed Martin & other contractors

I disagree. I did not say he would have opposed Afghanistan. I think we had just cause to go after the taliban.
As a New Yorker I think he would have been eager to see them taken out.

strange, someone you said believed in peace & non-violence would want to see anyone taken out. which is it? non-violence, or selective violence? You can't believe in non-violence if you support violence when convenient. a "man of conscience" would not support that.

But we didn't get the taliban, did we? Didn't get Bin Laden? No, our government abandoned effective action agaisnt the folks that attacked us and took advantage of a cynical opportunity to siexe oil fields.
And they did so by lying.

In the months leading up to the war Bush relied upon the media being too timid to ask the hard questions for fear of being accused of being unpatriotic.. But they could have justified covering Lennon due to his fame.
And I think someone with his history who commanded the sympathy of that generation.. calling foul on lies and pure imperialism would have had effect.

another anti-bush screed. who could've seen this coming, in a thread about John Lennon

the Lennon of 2003 had he lived, would have made no difference.

 

[Flashy]

You can disagree... but you didn't live thru the 60s and 70s with him... you have no idea how folks of my era feel about him.

strange that you didnt use the spirit of his conscience & sit in bed playing guitar & growing your hair. obviously you folks didn't feel that much, or you'd have got more support. right or wrong, support for the war(pew) in March 2003, was 72% & i'd bet a fair bundle of those folks were from "your era"

Dylan (snip)

Again- you have no idea of the effect the man had. War is Over and give peace a chance proliferated I wore t-shirts with those slogan on them all thru high school graduating in 75.
Registration for the draft was ended two weeks before my 18th birthday..

Again, you overestimate his effect since it was so powerful to you & a segment of the populace. I'll remind you, Lennon *LOST* a considerable amount of Beatles fans, when he went "hippy" & when the Beatles went more dark & political. McCartney himself didn't like it. Neither did many fans.

So Big deal, you wore t-shirts. I wore t-shirts that said "Nuke Iran" & "Boston Sucks" through the late 70s during the Hostage Crisis & when the Yankees would play the Red Sox back when i was 8.

Seriously I am sure he would have had little effect on YOU... but the people between 45 and 65 in 2001... those were the folks gathering with candles in every major city in the world in 1980.

oh yes? Well let me tell you something my presumptuous "friend", my family was returning from dinner on the west side when the news came on the radio. I was 9 & my parents parked the car on a side street near the Dakota & sat there stunned. we then walked 3 blocks in the freezing cold of December in NY, my parents bought some flowers at a little korean market & we went to the Dakota, where the Police lines were already up & hundreds of people were gathering, stunned, crying, in disbelief.

i went to a couple of the tributes in later years at Strawberry Fields & Yoko would send down coffee to everyone.

you know nothing about how i feel, so save it.

You and your tax laws. the man paid his taxes. the US government persecuted him for his opposition to the war.
When the government goes after you for speaking out... you are having an effect.

LOL. uh, no he did not. Strange that our situation now finds *YOU* defending the tax *AVOIDER*

The US Gov't did persecute him for being a foreigner & stirring up what they felt was trouble.

*HOWEVER*

The fact is, JL was here, mainly, like most other British artists at the time living abroad most of the year, to avoid oppressive British taxation.

*FACT*

perhaps you recall The Beatle's tune "Tax Man" that opened Revolver in 1966.


Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.

-

you'll notice it is about the 95% tax wealthy Britons paid & yes, that is why Apple was formed - to dodge taxes.

I don't give shit what you would have thought of him protesting an Iraq invasion The people who control the media would have given him air time, because they are all old enough to know who he was.

maybe they could have squeezed him in between "American Idol" & Desperate Housewives. he'd have got airtime & would've changed nothing

The effective public protesters from that era are all either gone... or tarnished by their association with extremist groups.

who could've predicted that?

Lennon was perhaps the only one whose consistent adherence to peaceful protest and effective use of his own celebrity and fortune to publicize his message has held the test of time.

if it has held the test of time, why didn't wearing t-shirts & singing "give peace a chance" stop the invasion of Iraq?

it still exists, but it hasn't changed world policy or war one bit

Jane Fonda undermined her credibility by posing on a commie gun.

And before she did, There was nothing as important & noteworthy as a protesting actress.

Lennon could have stood up and said his protest, then, was right, was righteous and was necessary.

He never stood with the reds never sided with the domestic terrorists
He simply reminded us that we had the capacity to be better

you are so full of shit, Phil. LOL

i dont think "the reds" would have thought much of him showing up in a fur coat getting out of his rolls royce. never stood with the Reds, huh Phil?


he absolutely did.
how deliciously ironic, that young europeans, suffering in czechoslovakia & Poland & similar places, were singing his songs as a way of freeing themselves of the oppressive systems they hated, yet he supported.

why not take a read of the "Lost Interview" Lennon did with the "Red Mole" in January '71 ( i printed bit parts in red, to make it easy for you to make the association) You may recall Phil, that "The Red Mole" was the paper of the The International Marxist Group, Trotskyists.

"All the revolutions have happened when a Fidel or Marx or Lenin or whatever, who were intellectuals, were able to get through to the workers. They got a good pocket of people together and the workers seemed to understand that they were in a repressed state. They haven’t woken up yet here,(UK) they still believe that cars and tellies are the answer. You should get these left-wing students out to talk with the workers, you should get the school-kids involved with The Red Mole."

JOHN LENNON

from the same Interview:

TA: How do you think we can destroy the capitalist system here in Britain, John?
John Lennon: I think only by making the workers aware of the really unhappy position they are in, breaking the dream they are surrounded by. They think they are in a wonderful, free-speaking country. They’ve got cars and tellies and they don’t want to think there’s anything more to life. They are prepared to let the bosses run them, to see their children fucked up in school. They’re dreaming someone else’s dream, it’s not even their own. They should realise that the blacks and the Irish are being harassed and repressed and that they will be next.
As soon as they start being aware of all that, we can really begin to do something. The workers can start to take over. Like Marx said: ‘To each according to his need’. I think that would work well here. But we’d also have to infiltrate the army too, because they are well trained to kill us all.

We’ve got to start all this from where we ourselves are oppressed. I think it’s false, shallow, to be giving to others when your own need is great. The idea is not to comfort people, not to make them feel better but to make them feel worse, to constantly put before them the degradations and humiliations they go through to get what they call a living wage.

-

*LOL*. let's just hope the workers don't take over the Dakota or the Rolls Royce factory, eh Phil?

scenario: 8 workers show up in New York. doorman let's them in to the Dakota

Worker -"hello John, we each "need" a fur coat & a penthouse apartment, may we come in?"
JL - "Come right in gentleman, take it all! To each according to his need!"

LOL


Power to the People: The Lost John Lennon Interview 1971 Kasama


sorry Phil, as talented as he was, if you can't look at that as the biggest pile of hypocritical monkey shit, then you need help. never stood with the Reds indeed. LOL.


and that interview was conducted two years after "REvolution was released". so he hadn't repudiated all those naughty reds.

Sorry, Flashy- if you don't recognize the stature of the man, you just don't know what a man of conscience is.

sorry Phil, if you can't recognize the difference between the hypocrisy of his "conscience" & the man's art, then you are truly insane. I'm a fan of Lennon's art & recognizing the "stature of the man" is far different then knowing what "a man of conscience" is.

Gandhi was a man of conscience. Lennon, was a brilliant, gifted, talented artist, who was rich, spoiled, eccentric, angry, tempermental, abusive & cruel to his children & wives.

obviously phil, you are the one who can't bother to recognize the "stature" of a man, vs a "man of conscience". a man of incredible stature, Lennon was. a "man of conscience" he was not.

a "man of conscience" would not have said his band was "bigger than Jesus", then backed off & apologized, for fear of harm to record sales.

brilliant artist? Yes. Icon? Yes. Man Of Conscience? LOL, no chance, Phil.

you, Phil, remind me of what Ian Hart, who played Lennon in "Backbeat" said.

"Apparently he was a pain in the arse, but everyone has a vested interest in reinventing Lennon for themselves. Statements have been made that would make you think he was Jesus."



btw, when his Aunt Mimi asked him why he talked like a Scouser when he'd been brought up to speak correctly, he responded: "It's about money. The fans expect me to talk like this."

now that's a conscience for you

come on Phil, accuse me of tarring the man's art again, not tearing down the phony hallowed shrine folks like you have built up to this "man of conscience". he was a musician & Icon to be esteemed greatly & nothing more.

 

[drumstyck]

simple way to compare the two:

wait til December, and tell me if you'd rather hear "Wonderful Christmas Time" or "Happy XMas".

i think those two songs are actually pretty representative (albeit in an extremely small cross-section) of their works...Paul was upbeat, positive, "simply having a wonderful time"...right there, its simple, wonderful, yay!

and compare that to "war is over if you want it"...i think john felt that music could do more than just entertain people, he wanted to make you stop & think.


i believe that they needed eachother in the beginning, as a few others have said...if john wasnt around, and it was all Paul writing the poppy "i wanna hold your hand" stuff, they would've faded with the rest of the british invasion...but if they didnt have paul, the label might not have wanted to release john's more cerebral stuff...


i also think its interesting that i was born in 1982, well after Lennon had died...but when i look at my age group (at least the people i grew up with, went to high school with, went to college with), we all chose Lennon over McCartney...i think just so many people want to give Lennon credit as the "genius" and McCartney as the "popstar".

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I'll remind you, Lennon *LOST* a considerable amount of Beatles fans, when he went "hippy" & when the Beatles went more dark & political. McCartney himself didn't like it. Neither did many fans.

Yeah, flashy tell me all about what I and my peers went thru 10 years before you were born.

You simply don't know shit.
You Have not a clue, weren't there and have made it abundantly clear you can't tell art from crap, and would not know a man of conscience if you met him.

Your total ignorance regarding what real character looks like is telling.
You keep dragging up PROOF of Lennon's conscience as if it were proof of its lack...
Me... I know conscience when I see it. Conscience is the willingess to admit to artifice as being artifice... willingness to answer such a question honestly, even when it reveals something less than flattering about yourself...

Sheesh, Flashy, did you even HAVE a Father? ...Some man of good charcater in your life to teach you about this stuff? Cause , really... you are embarrassing yourself trying to tear down Lennon...

It's no coincidence that the majority opinion in this is with Lennon...


Tell ya what... You keep right on looking for some example of Lennon not telling the truth about his own bullshit... because just maybe you will learn something about character and conscience and how exposing one's own struggle with personal faults as an abject example for others is the only redemption for those faults... and the path of a true artist.

And just to clarify it for you... Great Art REQUIRES Conscience.
Attacking one is attacking the other.

( and you can go ahead, now, and embarrass yourself further by explaining to the professional artist how art works... )

Your fringe opinions and misreading of the man prove you have no real comprehension of character, nor conscience, nor history.

Telling a guy from the 60s what the 60s were about.... Truly Pathetic.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

BTW- here's a hint... Conscience doesn't mean you don't make mistakes, don't act in self interest... it doesn't even mean you don't do things that are wrong...
It means you can face ALL of your own actions, honestly.

You know what a total LACK of conscience looks like?

Conservatives...
Their lack of any ability to admit error or self interest, to face their faults and strive for personal change or redemption... that, right there, is the antithesis of conscience .

 

[Phil Ayesho]

PS- a couple more things, Flashy
Taxman was written by Harrison.

And your commie red quotes?
Sorry, but I agree with everything he says about capitalism. It leads to the enslavement of the working class. In case you haven't read any history both Britain and America escaped a Marxist revolution by legalizing unions- by compromising with socialism.


You really don't get it, do you? I don't give a damn what his positions were... I don't even have to agree with them..

You got no ground to stand on in attacking his POSITIONS on anything. Character and Conscience has nothing to do with what you believe... it has to do with whether you are HONEST about what you believe.
And whether you are capable of honestly changing your mind as a result of experience.

FYI- I do everything in my power to reduce my tax obligation... to pay the lowest tax I can LEGALLY defend.
And so do you.
Ergo, I don't begrudge him moving to America where, BTW the effective tax rate for his income was nearly 50%, at the time.

Seriously- watch US vs John Lennon... Learn Something for a change.

ETA- I have a friend who I love dearly.
He is an absolute and unrelenting asshole.

But he is unflinchingly honest about the fact that he is an asshole...
It's not necessarily being nice...
Its owning up.

That is conscience...

 

[D_Doewell Dadong]

Lennon

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Oh- and just one more clarification since Flashy seems so totally lacking in comprehension of the idea...


Flashy, I know this is a complex and nuanced issue that is a little over your head... but please try and wrap your skull around this little complication...

There is no doubt in my mind that Paul McCartney is a much NICER guy than John Lennon ever was. I am certain Lennon was a PILL to be around...

I know for a fact that McCartney was far less troubled than Lennon, far nicer and truer to his wife. A generous fellow with a good heart. I base this upon stories told about the guy... not upon anything revealed in his body of work.

But nice doesn't make you a great artist... communication does.

As far as I know, McCartney is ALSO a man of conscience... although I doubt it.
Because conscience requires a public honesty about one's own failings, and is the core of all great art, the fact that I get no feeling from any of Paul's work of any true personal crisis or change of heart, leads me to suspect that he has never undergone any great crisis of self doubt or self revelation.

Happy happy joy joy is NOT the mind of conscience...

If Paul HAD it... it would have come out in his music...

So you see how all your indictments of Lennon are meaningless? Its not about who's the nicer guy or who has the most consistent set of beliefs...

Its about whether you are open about yourself, and face the world as you truly are... face yourself as you truly are...

Lennon was plagued with contradictions and foibles...

But he never hid them from us.... and the pain he suffered in coming to grips with them he shared with us.

McCartney was and still is a closed book, A very private man.

He may well be a very good man...
But he has given us no way of knowing that for sure.

The unexamined life is not worth living... and McCarntey offers little proof of his own self examination.

 

[Northland]

As an artist I can answer that...
here's the difference...

That is why Lennon's death prompted such a vigil, whereas Harrison's did not

There were many reasons. Let's remember, Lennon was murdered, it was sudden and shocking. Harrison died a slow painful death by cancer. There was time to prepare for George's death. The manner in which Lennon was executed reached inside of people and tugged at their emotions.

Additionally, if you want to talk down to earth and quiet. self-effacing and all-around good guy, George would win hands down. You see Phil, as a writer I know the difference between artists and can answer things in an informed manner. Having met George and talked with him I know who he was. As the son of a bus driver, he understood my working in the bus industry. Yes, George and I were kindred spirits. We once even spoke about the afterlife and what our individual views and beliefs were on it.

George also was one of the main parts of The Concert For Bangladesh. The first of its kind-a benefit concert-it could be argued that it made things like Farm Aid and Live Aid possible as concepts and actualized events. Truly George eclipsed both Lennon and McCartney in humanitarianism.

But the difference between Lennon's work and his is like the difference between Hemingway and John Grisham, like the difference between Picasso and Normal Rockwell.

When it comes to art, Rockwell was well loved, but Picasso defined what art was to become.
Grisham is poplar and widely read... but Hemingway defined the future of what great writing would be.

They both created musical art... but Lennon's was far more emotionally impactful... and that is what makes art great.

And Lennon's art extended outward from music, into poetry, cinema, protest and social activism.

I don't care for Rockwell, I like most of Picasso. Add to this, Rockwell made significant contributions to the art world and many still paint (or attempt to) in his style. Art is constantly in a state of change.
Grisham is still alive and making an impact. Hemingway is deceased and people often becoome legends after death. Grisham still may. Literary form and what interests readers is constantly in a state of change.

Art. music, writing and even films, are continually changing as are the interests of those absorbing them. Western genre and Sci-fi in both film and literary wax and wane. Art style from random blobs of paint to clear form, continually change. Music goes from meaningful to bubble-gum and back again regularly. No one musician, writer, artist or film maker can be deemed the best. There will always be both a differing view and another in that same trade who will come along.

I remember the billboard, all across america... War is Over if you want it

Where the fuck has McCartney been in moving a generation?

God how I wish Lennon had lived.... Iraq would never have been invaded with him to call on our consciences...

Really? One billboard extended over the entire United States? Perhaps you meant to pluralize.

Regarding the matter of Iraq, there is no proof to this. Your assertion that it was Lennon who ended The Vietnam conflict, negates what so many other people did-and the fact (see I can use the word FACT as well) that millions of young people had already begun protesting prior to Lennon's tune.

George

Yes; however we were only given the options of Lennon or McCartney. George deserves his own thread.

There is no doubt in my mind that Paul McCartney is a much NICER guy than John Lennon ever was. I am certain Lennon was a PILL to be around...

I know for a fact that McCartney was far less troubled than Lennon, far nicer and truer to his wife. A generous fellow with a good heart. I base this upon stories told about the guy... not upon anything revealed in his body of work.

As far as I know, McCartney is ALSO a man of conscience... although I doubt it.

I know A, based upon B Absolutely amazing. Followed by knowledge of something even though you doubt it. You can't have both, although it was a nice try.

The unexamined life is not worth living... and McCarntey offers little proof of his own self examination.

And you forgot to give credit to Socrates for that quote.

 

[B_Artful Dodger]

I dont like either... but if I had to choose then McCartney on the basis of Live and Let Die.

 

[b.c.]

....Its about whether you are open about yourself, and face the world as you truly are... face yourself as you truly are...

Lennon was plagued with contradictions and foibles...

But he never hid them from us.... and the pain he suffered in coming to grips with them he shared with us.

McCartney was and still is a closed book, A very private man.

He may well be a very good man...
But he has given us no way of knowing that for sure.

The unexamined life is not worth living... and McCarntey offers little proof of his own self examination.

Well here I've got to totally disagree with you, Phil. This is bullshit imo.

Maybe it's about being true to yourself. We can tell what was "true" for these two individuals by merely recalling their lifestyles shortly after the group's breakup.

John loved New York...the hubbub of the city, the activism, the sleep-in war protests, the whole deal. Paul lived on a farm. To escape himself? or because it was what was true to him?

Nor was McCartney wholly devoid of association with world concerns and causes. Maybe just not the causes or in a manner to your satisfaction.

I don't buy the argument that you have to be plagued with "contradictions and foibles" or that you have to bare your soul to the world to be considered an "artist" - or that the "unexamined life is not worth living".

Besides, whose to say what self examination one does or doesn't endure? Or that one's craft is worthy of less consideration because he/she offers (us) little evidence of such? What's wrong with being a "closed book" or a "private man"?

....Bullshit.

 

[Flashy]

Yeah, flashy tell me all about what I and my peers went thru 10 years before you were born.

LOL...okay Phil, i will tell you all about it...10 years before i was born would make it 1961. Before the Beatles hit America, and you were likely, oh about 4 years old...so what were you and your peers going through? An existential crisis over dealing with the physics of using a hula hoop? Changing from diapers to big boy pants and learning to use a toilet?

You simply don't know shit.
You Have not a clue, weren't there and have made it abundantly clear you can't tell art from crap, and would not know a man of conscience if you met him.

LOL...Phil, do you actually read what you write? You are so full of shit. Can't tell art from crap? Yes, i guess the fact that i find Lennon to be one of the most important artists of the 20th century indicative of not knowing art...but please go ahead and ignore that *AGAIN*

apparently, my love of the Beatles means i cannot tell art from crap.

and as for me "not knowing a man of conscience" if i met him, well, i guess somehow Phil, i will just have to live with your scorn for my lack of recognizing John Lennon as having a highly evolved conscience on the scale of Gandhi.

After all, one preached about living a simple, non-materialistic life, and the other preached the same, but lived in a penthouse and wore fur coats and pretended to be a communist.

Your total ignorance regarding what real character looks like is telling.
You keep dragging up PROOF of Lennon's conscience as if it were proof of its lack...

oh i see, so now he had character *and* conscience? Wasn't it you that earlier said that most artists were very tempermental and flawed people with serious problems?

lennon was a passionate and vital artist...but he had no "character", and only displayed conscience with regards to the anti-war movement...something that 10s of millions of others had a conscience about not just JL.

Me... I know conscience when I see it. Conscience is the willingess to admit to artifice as being artifice... willingness to answer such a question honestly, even when it reveals something less than flattering about yourself...

wow...you seem to broaden your definitions of conscience with every post.

Sheesh, Flashy, did you even HAVE a Father? ...Some man of good charcater in your life to teach you about this stuff? Cause , really... you are embarrassing yourself trying to tear down Lennon...

LOL...actually, like Lennon, i had a shitty father, who might as well have been absent. I learned from a wonderful mother and grandparents. But unlike Lennon, i did not become a wife beater and an abusive husband and father...i did not pretend i believed in communism while driving a rolls royce...

As for embarrassing myself...I am doing nothing of the sort, you are behaving like a spoiled 6 year old, who cannot admit that the person he has built up to Messianic proportions, really was just a very flawed man.

Nowhere have a tried to tear down Lennon...I have simply stated a fact. He was a brilliant artist, but a very flawed, mean, abusive and somewhat hypocritical person.

You just cannot handle the truth because you have built up such a shrine to him in your mind.

You simply have lost any ability to be objective about the man himself.

It's no coincidence that the majority opinion in this is with Lennon...

what majority opinion? In this thread? About being the superior artist to McCartney? Of course he was...I even said it on the first page in the first post, you silly clown.

I chose Lennon, of course...but the fact is, he, like McCartney would have never succeeded without the other.

http://www.lpsg.org/2230204-post1.html

Phil, you really need counseling.

Tell ya what... You keep right on looking for some example of Lennon not telling the truth about his own bullshit...

Hmmm...i already did...about his hypocrisy about communism...he never admitted that.

His talk about love and peace while being a nasty, cruel and abusive person both in his family and around him...not to mention the really funny way he used to religiously make fun of "cripples and spastics" as he called them...even doing imitations of them rather often.

because just maybe you will learn something about character and conscience and how exposing one's own struggle with personal faults as an abject example for others is the only redemption for those faults... and the path of a true artist.

Actually, Phil, the actual *REDEMPTION* of all those faults is actually *REDEEMING* them...not singing about it and continuing on making all those same struggles and mistakes.

You are so far up your ass, no claiming that being an artist somehow excuses being a horrible person.

they are two different things.

Being a wife beater, then singing about it and continuing on being a wife beater doesn't make giving an "abject example" for others be redemptive.

What gives you redemption, is *NOT BEATING YOUR WIFE* and if you do, redeeming yourself by *STOPPING* and making *AMENDS*

Being an artist does not offer you a free pass to be a complete and utter ass, and automatically give you an exemption if you choose to sing about what an ass you are, and then continue to go on being an ass.

It says you are an imperfect, weak person, who has the ability to express oneself through art, but does not, mean you have license to continue that behavior because you get a free "Art pass"

And just to clarify it for you... Great Art REQUIRES Conscience.
Attacking one is attacking the other.

LOL...total nonsense.

Jim Morrison was a great artist. He had no conscience. He was a nihilist and a hedonist. he was my favorite frontman of all0time....but he was a liar, a drunk, a drug addict, he was abusive and cared about little else than himself.

While there certainly are many artists with conscience, great art does not require it...how would you know anyway? You are not a great artist...you are just a graphic designer, you are not Matisse or Monet or Cezanne.

Rimbaud had no conscience...he was a total asshole.

can you even define conscience Phil?

here are the most relevant definitions:
--

1. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong:
2. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement:
3. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct:

---

Lennon met none of those criteria *EXCEPT* for as an anti-war spokesman.

On every other topic, other than war, he never preferred right over wrong in his own conduct.

he never followed morals or ethics in his personal conduct.

he indeed conformed to his own sense of conduct...but it certainly wasn't *RIGHT* conduct except in the anti-war movement.

( and you can go ahead, now, and embarrass yourself further by explaining to the professional artist how art works... )

LOL...yeah...the professional graphic designer...tell me Monsieur Cezanne...tell me of art? Please, help us all.

Tell me of its beauty and horrors, good sir...let us learn at your feet. Tell us of conscience, and right and wrong...about ethics and morals and all that you have brought to the world through your particular art.

there truly should be a gigantic statue built to honor your sense of yourself.

Your fringe opinions and misreading of the man prove you have no real comprehension of character, nor conscience, nor history.

LOL...Phil, you are a true knucklehead.

Lennon had no character...unless it was the bad type.
Lennon had a conscience when it came to the anti-war movement, but not much else, and was rather a hypocrite
Lennon has a place in history as one of the greatest artists of the past century, and by extension, of all time.
Lennon was a true artist.

but he was not the messiah you profess him to be.

Telling a guy from the 60s what the 60s were about.... Truly Pathetic.

LOL...a guy from the 60s...you were about 12 when the 60s ended...i'll bet you were out there storming the barricades back in 67, eh phil? did you rock the Democratic Convention in Chicago at age 10? call a marine a "baby-killer" at age 11 ?

you are so far up your own bitter rear end Phil, that you are choking on your own bile.

 

[Flashy]

BTW- here's a hint... Conscience doesn't mean you don't make mistakes, don't act in self interest... it doesn't even mean you don't do things that are wrong...
It means you can face ALL of your own actions, honestly.

I see, so when, Phil, did Lennon face up to being a hypocrite about communism, being utterly vicious about cripples and spastics...being emotionally abusive, being a shit father, a shit husband, a bad bandmate and the fact that even Yoko said he was a closet case.

You know what a total LACK of conscience looks like?

Conservatives...
Their lack of any ability to admit error or self interest, to face their faults and strive for personal change or redemption... that, right there, is the antithesis of conscience .

thrilling...another move back to conservative republicans...as if they had anything to do with this thread.

 

[Flashy]

PS- a couple more things, Flashy
Taxman was written by Harrison.

yes, Phil, it was...and Lennon contributed lyrics and McCartney the riffs

look it up.

And your commie red quotes?
Sorry, but I agree with everything he says about capitalism. It leads to the enslavement of the working class. In case you haven't read any history both Britain and America escaped a Marxist revolution by legalizing unions- by compromising with socialism.

i am not saying that his communists quotes were not accurate...i am saying the hypocrisy about spouting them while dressing in furs, living in the Dakota Penthouse and driving a rolls royce while doing everything possible to evade taxes, cast a sheen of total bullshit over his pronouncements

not to mention, his hypocrisy about non-violence is laid bare when he talked about "infiltrating the army"...no doubt to do sock puppet shows, i suppose, and not to eliminate the dangerous fascists in uniform.

You really don't get it, do you? I don't give a damn what his positions were... I don't even have to agree with them..

yes Phil, i know you do not give a damn that he was a total hypocrite...

he supported women's rights, but beat and was emotionally abusive to women
he supported communism, but drove a rolls royce
he claimed everyone should share, but did everything possible to dodge taxes

and on and on.

surely Phil, as an artist, when one says one thing, but is lying about it, that would constitute fraud...and art and fraud are not exclusive, are they Phil, since after all,m art is about truth...and if the artist is a liar, how can he speak truth?

please enlighten us some more.

You got no ground to stand on in attacking his POSITIONS on anything. Character and Conscience has nothing to do with what you believe... it has to do with whether you are HONEST about what you believe.
And whether you are capable of honestly changing your mind as a result of experience.

actually Phil, i do. I am standing on solid rock...as evidenced by your hysterics in firing in all directions, whining about everything, in the face of voerwhelming evidence of hypocrisy on his part.

He was not a man of character, and the only conscience he displayed was to the anti-war movement, which is something to admire...and little else.

FYI- I do everything in my power to reduce my tax obligation... to pay the lowest tax I can LEGALLY defend.
And so do you.
Ergo, I don't begrudge him moving to America where, BTW the effective tax rate for his income was nearly 50%, at the time.

actually, Phil, there is a difference.

You might want to look up the difference between tax *EVASION* and tax *AVOIDANCE*

one is legal, one is not.

Avoidance uses every legal aspect, which is what i do and others do. Evasion, is the act of hiding or misreporting income so as to evade the legally owed taxes.

Lennon's rate in Britain was 95%.

and as usual, Phil, you are wrong. When Lennon moved to the US in 1971, the top marginal rate was 70%. No points for you this round.

That still does not change the fact, that as Lennon said, Apple was formed to *HIDE* the Beatles income.

they even paid someone to live in the Bahamas at one time and hold all their money to avoid taxes and they were found out and had to bring it all back...just read "Anthology"...Ringo says it plain as day

and then JL said on the same page (207)

"George wrote it and i helped him with it. At the time we weren't aware of the whole tax scene. I'm still not really aware what goes on with taxes. We believe that if you earn it, you may as well keep it...unless there's a communal or communist or real christian society...but while we're living in this, i protest against paying the government what i have to pay them"


LOL...who would have thought Phil, eh? John Lennon, tax protester...LOL sadly , John Lennon with his drugtaking, physical and emotional abuses divorces, anti tax stance and dodges is actually a bit like Rush Limbaugh in a way...that must sting a bit for you, eh Phil?

Seriously- watch US vs John Lennon... Learn Something for a change.

you love to talk about other people enlightening themselves...shame you never take your own advice.

ETA- I have a friend who I love dearly.
He is an absolute and unrelenting asshole.

But he is unflinchingly honest about the fact that he is an asshole...
It's not necessarily being nice...
Its owning up.

That is conscience...

no, phil, that is not conscience. Admitting you are an absolute asshole, does not fit into any of these categories:

1. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong:
2. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement:
3. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct:

being an asshole and admitting it, is nothing more than self-awareness.

your friend does not prefer right, he is not moral or ethical by being an asshole, and nowhere does being an asshole qualify as a sense of right conduct to conform to.

You are full of shit as usual.