Oct 3rd 2005. John Lennon is 60. WHAT IF...?

expomick · Post by **expomick** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:59 am

Now that's a sad-but-true scenario! John bakes bread. John hides from Yoko, John hides from McCartney at the front door.

revolver323 · Post by **revolver323** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:42 am

I think John loved Yoko as much as Paul loved Linda, and that each woman held influence over her husband in different ways, but just as powerfully. I doubt John would've dumped Yoko any more than Paul dumped Linda. Both women sounded like the "love of a lifetime" all of us hope for and some achieve. How many people do you know who don't care for your wife? Have you divorced her because of that? If John were alive, I think that over the past 25 years his work would have been just as uneven as Paul's has been. Either John or George might have organized a flood relief concert for NOLA. George would've been more likely than John to actually show up there, although I can see why both would've been afraid to do so. JPG & R are/were after all, merely human. Phenomenally talented, but still human.

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:53 am

Very nicely said Dave.

Not that it's going to make any difference in other peoples opinion and take on John but I agree 100%.

harley · Post by **harley** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:23 pm

John had pretty uneven output when he was alive, it's unlikely he'd have gotten more consistent as he got older. The reason is the same as it is with Paul and Ringo and was with George, they can't compete with the Beatles (few others can, either). The difference is that we always expected them to be capable of making us feel the way we felt when we first heard them as Beatles. The mythology alone is virtually impossible to overcome.

I'm listening to the new Paul McCartney album right now. If this was produced by anyone else, we could talk about the sense of melody, the arrangements, the maturity of vision, etc. But since it's Paul, we get "it's not as good as the Beatles". As I recall, a lot of the same criticism was leveled at Double Fantasy when it was first released.

I think John, like Paul, would have kept releasing whatever he felt like doing and if we bought it fine, if we didn't, fine.

On a related note (and I blame Dane for this) I can't ignore the shakers on Pauls new album and they do seem just a tiny bit "off". Drat!

revolver323 · Post by **revolver323** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:03 pm

Harley, you support points that have been brought up in other threads. McCartney and any artist who has reached "legendary" status often fails to live up to his own hype. If Jesus were still in the flesh, people would be saying, "The water and wine thing was fine, but that last miracle just didn't live up to my expectations." I don't think Paul would put out an album that he was less than happy with.

expomick · Post by **expomick** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:52 pm

All good points, gentlemen, but also maybe there is a finite amount of "good stuff" in each artist; maybe the juice has been squeezed from the orange already.

Not that there is any shame in that - god, I'd be happy to have a mere ounce of that talent, be it McCartney or Lennon or Dylan or any artist that has been around for the long haul.

I love the work of Elvis Costello, and he's produced a lot of quality stuff since the late 70's, but I often think he's in the same position. While not a legend like the former Beatles, he's still a name artist.

But then again, that's what these fellows (and gals) do...they are musicians and entertainers. It's in their blood, as they say. It would be hard to stop performing and creating.

Still, I'd rather spend what little money I have on new artists, much like the Beatles were once up-and-comers. Calcification is not a good thing, then or now.

qmoder · Post by **qmoder** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:13 pm

I just can't see him setting there pining over Yoko forever. Linda and Yoko are quite different people. John had already seperated from Yoko once. Paul never left Linda.

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:17 am

Here in the L.A. Times is a certain critic, who since the beginning of time has been declaring so-and-so the next Beatles or Dylan (Duran Duran and Oasis the former, Springsteen the latter). Anyway, when Double Fantasy came out, he just ripped it to shreds, Lennon's a shadow of his former self musically, has lost it, etc. A short while later, after John had been killed, he "reviewed" it a second time, that time saying upon repeated listenings, it's a very good album and Lennon would have had a bright comeback.

revolver323 · Post by **revolver323** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:47 am

Not surprising. I know quite a few people who passed on Double Fantasy when it was released but ran out to buy it on Dec. 9, 1980.