Genius? Hmmm! (John Lennon in general)

Member Name: Pingu

Product:	John Lennon in general
Date:	05/08/00 (33 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: see above

Disadvantages: see above

I saw another review on Lennon and wanted to leave a comment on it. But, in light of the fact that my comment would probably only have been read by the review's originator, I decided to write my own opinion to redress the balance.

First of all, was Lennon the genius behind the Beatles or was it McCartney? Read the other review and you will hear it must have been McCartney, because he has gone on to write 'Classical' albums, unlike Lennon who has only managed Imagine apparently. Well the fact is that McCartney does not compose. He sits down with a composer such as Carl Davies, who plays ideas at the piano, and says, "Would you like it to start like this?" and McCartney says yes or no. So the material itself is Carl Davies'. McCartney's input is to decide how to structure a piece out of these ideas. And the fact that the pieces are structural flops suggests he doesn't even do this well. Don't get me wrong, I have enormous respect for McCartney, and believe he was certainly one of the keys to the Beatles' success, but to suggest that Lennon's contribution should be redefined in terms of who later had the bigger selling solo career is rather simple-minded.

And talking of solo careers. Lennon was caught up in the spirit of an age. The likes of Le Monte Young, John Cage and other philosopher/composers were turning the concept of art on its head at the time. For instance Cage wrote a piece entitled 4'33'' in which a pianist comes on stage, sits in silence for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, and walks off again. The idea was to question the formalised role of performer and audience, and to point out that there is always sound going on, whether it is organised or not. Lennon was involved in this spirit via Yoko Ono, who was a 'performance artist' of the same mould, and connected to Cage. I don't know if Lennon was truly the genius he is portrayed to be; but he was a cult figure already, which m
ade him a more acceptable front-face for the movement which was going on. The weeks in bed, the give-peace-a-chance slogans, I don't think any of it was Lennon's own doing, but he was there at the time, and attracted followings rather like those which Princess Di could attract simply by attaching her name to a charity.

His solo music is, I believe, underrated. Songs such as Imagine, Beautiful Boy, Jealous Guy, Woman, etc, create an extremely powerful emotional response in me, some of which may be by association with my childhood, but most of which is not. What I hear in them is simply John Lennon, being himself, completely unpretentious and laying his emotions open. Brave music, and it connects with the humanity inside all of us in a way that more polished music doesn't always do. McCartney, for instance, has gone on to write lots more clever music, but he has lost touch with the prevailing spirit, and his solo music will eventually die out. Lennon's music, on the other hand, transcends trends, because it is so honest, and is likely to sound fresh forever.

I don't like John Lennon's life-style. I think he used his massive influence to create a great deal of decadence, promiscuity, drug abuse - you name it. Neither is his music particularly stunning from an analytic point of view, but I cannot deny that he has the power to touch my soul. He surely deserves the title of most influential artist of the last century.

Summary: