Thread: John lennon.

John Lennon saw religion, property and nationalism as being roots of evil in the world.

I can't really argue with him, though I am a Christian, an entrepreneur, and fiercely nationalistic about my nation as it was intended to be.

I guess I agree with him, aside from property being bad. I think boundaries are necessary, and who can make better boundaries on what is to be done in what places and on what objects than those who own them...

I don't think its atheism necessarily, and not even really communism. I think all it is is the ideal of not having anything to fight over. Religions and land and governments are the things that humans fight over, so without them (theoretically) we would all be peaceful. Personally, I think its placing blame on the symptoms instead of the causes. Instead of doing away with the things that people currently fight over, I wish to do away with the urge to fight and inability to identify with the rest of the human race. Otherwise, people will just find new things to fight about.

I don't think he was singing about very specific things (like atheism or china). He might have given examples of some things, but I think overall, it's a song about unity, in a "Imagibne a world where humans live in harmony" kind of way.

John Lennon was ridiculously rich. His estate is worth money in the billions now. He was such a hypocrite. "Imagine all the people sharing all the world." I guess the song should have been titled "Imagine" because all he did was IMAGINE it. Maybe he should have followed the song up with one called "Act On It" where he declared that he was about to donate more than 99% of his money to charity, just before actually doing it in real life. He was not the socialist he tried to sound like. I would not be saying this if he just illustrated the idea in a song because he thought it made a good artistic concept. He ran his mouth about that junk and other junk in public all the time at the end of the days of the Beatles and through the first years of the 70's.

However, the Beatles have been my favorite band since I was a small child, and I think John Lennon might be the most talented artist who has ever lived. If you count John Lennon and Paul McCartney as a single entity, that is the most talented human entity at any art form... ever. The creativity and singing ability they showed has probably never been topped by any other person in any artistic area. I think Lennon was big time incredible.

But like many other phenomenal artists, he did not need to be trying to sound like he understood politics. He was a master of art, not logic. All his political talk ever did for me was disappoint me and make me nauseous.

Now check out this amazing footage...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TcuvjYxYJz0

He's rich beyond anyone's dreams, but he has tons of charities and donates loads of money.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

He's rich beyond anyone's dreams, but he has tons of charities and donates loads of money.

A little weird to read that in the present tense.

Universal Mind, you opened my eyes a little bit with that post, actually. At first I was thinking, "Arr how dare you say anything bad about a former Beatle" since they have also always been my childhood favorite band.. (and I'm still recovering from the after effects of my obsession hehe) but I completely agree with what you said.

He was a master of art, not logic.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

A little weird to read that in the present tense.

Universal Mind, you opened my eyes a little bit with that post, actually. At first I was thinking, "Arr how dare you say anything bad about a former Beatle" since they have also always been my childhood favorite band.. (and I'm still recovering from the after effects of my obsession hehe) but I completely agree with what you said.

Neat Mes T. Saw my thread!

Originally Posted by ninja9578

He's rich beyond anyone's dreams, but he has tons of charities and donates loads of money.

He was like Angelina Jolie, Barbara Streisand, and a lot of other mega-rich entertainers. He gave to charity, I assume, but he wasn't exactly sharing his money with everybody who could use it. If you have a buffet plate and give one of your french fries to a homeless person, you aren't exactly "sharing" your plate with him. Those entertainers don't give away income percentages that rise to the level of socialist percentages. Not even close.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

A little weird to read that in the present tense.

Universal Mind, you opened my eyes a little bit with that post, actually. At first I was thinking, "Arr how dare you say anything bad about a former Beatle" since they have also always been my childhood favorite band.. (and I'm still recovering from the after effects of my obsession hehe) but I completely agree with what you said.

That is the first time I have ever gone off about John Lennon so negatively like that. I left that post yesterday, and I am still feeling physical pain from doing it. I might try to go the rest of my life without doing that again.

Be sure you see that Youtube clip I posted.

Well there is one problem with your reasoning. If you give away all your money, it becomes much more difficult to make more money and thus have more money to give. Assuming a constant interest rate of 5%, if you were to maintain a constant $5 million, you could donate 250 thousand dollars a year indefinitely (and thats ignoring quarterly compounding interest), but if you were to just donate the 5 million dollars you would reach an end to your philanthropy. Within just 20 years you would have become less generous than if you had remained rich.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

A little weird to read that in the present tense.

Oops, I was thinking of Paul.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Well there is one problem with your reasoning. If you give away all your money, it becomes much more difficult to make more money and thus have more money to give. Assuming a constant interest rate of 5%, if you were to maintain a constant $5 million, you could donate 250 thousand dollars a year indefinitely (and thats ignoring quarterly compounding interest), but if you were to just donate the 5 million dollars you would reach an end to your philanthropy. Within just 20 years you would have become less generous than if you had remained rich.

Explain that to the socialists who disagree with you. Barbar Streisand isn't saying, "Hey, let's set up an investment system where we get 5% of what the rich make." She is saying, "Let's take the majority of what the rich make." "Sharing all the world" is not the idea you are illustrating. It is the kind of idea capitalists like me believe in.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Oops, I was thinking of Paul.

Paul is the richest entertainer in history.

Who's talking about Barbara Streisand except for you? The thread is about John Lennon and his song Imagine, and although the image may be used by socialists to further their own agenda, as far as I know John Lennon was not a socialist himself. Tell me, what percentage of your own income do you donate to worthy causes?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Who's talking about Barbara Streisand except for you? The thread is about John Lennon and his song Imagine, and although the image may be used by socialists to further their own agenda, as far as I know John Lennon was not a socialist himself. Tell me, what percentage of your own income do you donate to worthy causes?

I talked about Barbara Streisand because I lumped John Lennon in with such celebrities who talk about socialistic ideas yet remain incredibly rich. "Imagine all the people sharing all the world" is a socialist message.

How much do I donate to causes? Ask me when I am a billionaire who talks like a socialist.

I gotta ask Universal, how long did it take to get so jaded? Whats the need to put so many negative twists on otherwise fairly innocent threads?

One point you are all forgetting is that there is a distinction between the author of a creation and the "speaker" of the creation, the imaginary person that is the one who say the words that comprise the creation.
For example, if you read a book by X, and the book is written in the first person, then the person in the book that says "I" is not X saying "I", but it is the "speaker" of the creation. The same is true in all art forms, unless it is a strictly autobiographical creation.

So, David Byrne is defiantly not a "Psycho Killer", and John Lennon was not a hypocrite by being rich, and it's not fair to judge his creations by the criteria of his character and life-style.

He created a song that expresses a Utopian dream. You can criticize the song in context of the social, political and religious background of the time in which it was written, but not in the context of what kind of person John Lennon was. There are hundreds of cases where the most beautiful art was created by stupid or not-nice people, a few examples that come to mind: Wagner, Céline, Picasso.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I gotta ask Universal, how long did it take to get so jaded? Whats the need to put so many negative twists on otherwise fairly innocent threads?

Sometimes people disagree. That is illustrated by what goes on in discussion forums. But, as you might have noticed, I did not initiate personal attacks against people posting here, like you just did and almost always do. Did you read the incredibly positive things I wrote about John Lennon?

Originally Posted by dodobird

One point you are all forgetting is that there is a distinction between the author of a creation and the "speaker" of the creation, the imaginary person that is the one who say the words that comprise the creation.
For example, if you read a book by X, and the book is written in the first person, then the person in the book that says "I" is not X saying "I", but it is the "speaker" of the creation. The same is true in all art forms, unless it is a strictly autobiographical creation.

So, David Byrne is defiantly not a "Psycho Killer", and John Lennon was not a hypocrite by being rich, and it's not fair to judge his creations by the criteria of his character and life-style.

He created a song that expresses a Utopian dream. You can criticize the song in context of the social, political and religious background of the time in which it was written, but not in the context of what kind of person John Lennon was. There are hundreds of cases where the most beautiful art was created by stupid or not-nice people, a few examples that come to mind: Wagner, Céline, Picasso.

I said it is fine if it is just a cool artistic concept, but John Lennon was a left wing fanatic who preached that stuff publicly all the time. "Imagine" is a great song, and I think it's cool that it came out the year I was born, but the original post asked about John Lennon on a personal level in real life.

Has anybody watched the video I posted? I very highly recommend it. It is a clip of The Beatles performing "I've Got a Feeling" at the roof top concert in 1969, their last public performance.

UM -

I think you're being a little unfair in your assessment. I mean, granted, superstars are rich. They are rich to a level that many of us could not even imagine. And, as such, they do spend their money on many frivolous things. But, many of them really do more of their share when it comes to living the lifestyles that they advocate. (I don't know if you were promoting or denouncing the Beatles' rooftop performance by posting the clip, but I thought it was great). When you bring up stars like Angelina Jolie and the like, I've got to say that I think she (in particular) has shown herself well worthy of preaching the "gospel" she speaks about "sharing the wealth." She's gone on record as saying - both - that she gives 1/3 of her annual income to charity and that the income that she makes, for what she does, is ridiculous. Simply saying something like that really puts her in the limelight to show how much of her materialistic possessions that she owns she is willing to give up. How many of our world leaders can make such a claim?

Granted, there is still a stupid amount of loot that they are keeping for themselves but (and I don't know much about Lennon and his lifestyle but, as an artist, I'm saying all that to say this: ) I don't think it's fair to denounce an artist's being a milionaire/billionaire - when put into context of how much they actually give to the cause - as being hypocritical. We are all human, and bound to our own imperfections (the concept of "putting self first" is often inevitable), but many people that are living a life of celebrity actually make very big strides to showcase the lifestyles they talk about. I mean, really, even at 1/3 of our annual income, imagine if everyone gave that much of their annual income to those that didn't have it - especially when you factor in what it takes to live that kind of lifestyle of always being in the limelight, never having your own bit of privacy, and people taking explicit interest in every waking moment of your life, from wanting to watch you go to the bathroom, to wanting to kill you for your opinion.

I don't think his message in "Imagine" is hypocritical, because I don't see him as preaching anything that he hasn't shown that he's actually stood for (assuming that he's made many contributions to charity - which, admittedly, is something I've heard often but never researched). As one man, even giving 99% of his own profits would not do much to stifle world poverty. I believe it is the message that he was leaning upon to do that sort of work. If his music was enough to cause as many people as he could reach to give up even a fraction of what, say, Jolie gives up annually, would that not be a message well made, and a movement worthy of praise?

Oneironaut, I wasn't saying there's anything wrong with being rich and keeping most of your money. I know I would. What I think is hypocritical is pushing for socialist ideas and keeping most of your money. That is what a lot of celebrities do. A person is not a true socialist unless he keeps only enough to get by and have a bit of extra spending money and gives the rest to charity. That is how Barbara Streisand wants how she wants most Americans to live. But she is nowhere near living like that. That is what I am talking about. As for Lennon, I am saying that "sharing all the world" is very different from "sharing 50% of their income".

Did you see all of the major praise I gave John Lennon as a musician? I was not being sarcastic. I totally believe it. I am a big time Beatles fanatic. I posted the roof top video because I think it's incredible.

Why is asking you about your jaded-ness an insult?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Why is asking you about your jaded-ness an insult?

Because of the definition of the word and your refusal to acknowledge the extremely positive things I said about John Lennon. Why do you always want to change the thread topic to the subject of me? Talk about John Lennon.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oneironaut, I wasn't saying there's anything wrong with being rich and keeping most of your money. I know I would. What I think is hypocritical is pushing for socialist ideas and keeping most of your money. That is what a lot of celebrities do. A person is not a true socialist unless he keeps only enough to get by and have a bit of extra spending money and gives the rest to charity.

I don't know that Lennon ever tried to classify himself as a "socialist," officially (but, then again, I don't know very much about the man). I can sympathize with that, though, because - even though I really wished in a world were things were given and shared with reasonable level of equality, I know that it is not how the world works and, because of the separation of wealth and power being as far-gone as it is, now, it never will be. Though I might make art that expresses a desire for the world for a more "equal" world, to suppress myself into mediocrity for a defeated (although commendable ideal), would make me a deluded fool. I don't think it really makes him a hypocrite. It may, just as much, make him a realist. Maybe his music just expresses his desire for things to be different.

I did see that you're a big fan, though. I didn't say that you were downing him for anything other than being (or seeming) hypocritical.