A John Lennon Day!!

On the day that we have the inauguration of someone who seems intent on damaging the planet for profit I thought it might be good to have a day of Lennon and some plain speaking honesty mixed with idealism. Just my cup of tea!

The Beatles were Lennon’s band. He was the driving force that got them to the top. Lennon had a tough streak and could be highly acerbic and even cruel. But he had wit, charisma and a sharpness of mind that was displayed to good effect. He also had musical genius and a team of three other equally talented musicians.

I don’t know what music would have been without the Beatles. The music business, under pressure from government in the USA, had gone for bland, chirpy, clean-cut, middle of the road Pop songs. It was only the Black R&B and Blues markets that were producing anything worthwhile. We were Pat Booned, Johnny Tillotsoned, Bobby Veed, Cliffed, Adamed and Billyed into a saccharine submission of teen pap.

Fortunately behind the corporate world of safe pop there was a thriving club scene playing good, loud, exciting R&B. The cities were rockin’. The kids were getting their kicks.

When the Beatles broke through they blew it wide open. They were raw and exciting. And although the Biz tried to tidy it up with suits and twee Merseybeat the genie was back out of the lamp. The Beatles were followed by the Stones, Yardbirds, Downliners Sect, Kinks, Animals, Pretty Things, Who, Smallfaces and a host of others and there was no way of getting it back. Music was free, loud and wild again.

The Beatles changed the world.

When they broke up Lennon found it liberating. He felt he was free again. The Beatles had become claustrophobic. Now he could speak his mind and say what he wanted. What followed was a few brilliant albums, some singles and a lot of crazy political activity and artistic creativity that was mighty weird and different.

Then the mojo seemed to dry up. A couple of mediocre albums and a lack of creativity. A break and a stuttering restart.

His assassination put a stop to any possibility of a reunion. We can only wonder at what might have been.


44 thoughts on “A John Lennon Day!!

      1. A fine example to us all. Even if we are lone voices we shout it how we see it, feel it and think it. What we think is right is our truth. We have to be true to it.

  1. You know… I don’t think they would ever have had that reunion. There was too much discord between them. Yoko Ono may have been good for Lennon, but I will always wonder how much she had to do with sewing those seeds of discontent between him and the others.

    1. I don’t know. I think there was a bit of media racism there. Yoko was an interesting personality and artist. She wanted involvement.
      A reunion was in the offing. They had patched up! We’ll never know.

      1. No they hadn’t “patched up”. Only Lennon had cooled off a bit with McCartney – at least to the extent of not telling him to “f-off” when he appeared unannounced at his door.
        Harrison wanted nothing to do with it. He couldn’t care less about The Beatles.
        They turned down an reunion offer in 1976.
        There were no more forthcoming, so I not too sure what reunion you refer to Opher.

      2. I was referring to the resumption of relationships of sorts. It is my view that there was an inevitability to it. George showed no reluctance to work with other Beatles on various projects. I see no reason why it would be presumptive to assume such a reunion would not have occurred.

      3. You exaggerate.
        George did have reluctance to work with other former Beatles on various projects.
        For example, he didn’t go near McCartney.

        He did 2 sessions with Lennon, one in 1970, the other in 1971 and that was it.
        He did 3 sessions for Ringo, the last in July 1973 for the Ringo album.
        He never saw Lennon or McCartney during these Ringo sessions and neither did Lennon & McCartney actually meet during them either.

        Your presumption is unfounded. They were offered huge money to reform in 1976, but they turned it down.

        I’m beginning to think you’re part of the “Davlen” conspiracy brigade.

      4. You are, as always, extremely confident on these things but there is no great evidence behind your statements.
        There is much conjecture but it is quite apparent that Harrison was after patching things up with John. There was an interview and then a telephone message in 1980. John, Ringo and George had worked together on I’m the Greatest and John was once again talking to Paul.
        1976 was well in the past. I reckon the mid eighties might well have been a possibility. The stumbling block was whether George could reconcile himself to Paul.
        But there was some evidence to suggest this was undulating and there was a thaw. In an interview on British Television in 1988, GH was answering a question about PM and said “For 10–12 years, I really haven’t known Paul, but more recently we’ve been hanging out and getting to know each other again.”
        So I hold out that there was a distinct possibility of a reunion in the eighties. For you to be so adamant that there wasn’t is unprovable. I only have to look at CSNY to see what can happen. I contend that the seeds were there by 1980.

      5. No great evidence?!
        Are you also unable to read? I gave you clear evidence of Harrison’s recordings with the other 3. That in itself gives you quite a bit of evidence.
        What did you think March 1973 was?
        That was the I’m The Greatest, but Harrison didn’t actually meet Lennon at the session. His guitar was recorded at a later date. Lennon was principally at that Ringo session to hand over the song to Ringo and make sure he knew what to do with it. He was not there to buddy about with Harrison and he didn’t. He didn’t even meet him. Lennon was only there for the one afternoon on the 12th March.
        Neither did he invite either Lennon or McCartney along to his Bangla Desh charity concert in 1971.
        Neither did he invite Lennon or McCartney up on stage during his USA 1974 tour, when there had been opportunity to do so.

        You obviously never listened to Lennon’s three and a half hour long interview with Rolling Stone magazine in December 1970, or the one with Jonas Mekas in October 1971.
        Or paid any attention to his December 1980 interviews with Rolling Stone magazine, the BBC’s Andy Peebles and New York radio’s Dave Sholin.
        See what he has to say about Beatles’ reunions and then come back and try and tell me again what you’ve just said.

        It wasn’t Harrison who had fallen out with Lennon!
        Opher, you’ve got the whole fucking story tits up.
        Harrison was with Lennon fooling around on Los Angeles radio on 21 December 1974. These 2 never had any issues between each other.
        Harrison did have with McCartney.
        Lennon obviously did, although they jammed together in Los Angeles in March 1974.
        Something else happened between sometime after this that stirred up the old wounds.
        Your 1980 phone call story isn’t about Harrison, but about McCartney.

        You obviously don’t have a clue about “Davlen”,theory for what it’s worth, but I didn’t expect you to.
        I had zero expectations on you having an iota of knowledge about “Davlen”.
        It didn’t escape me that you conveniently avoided to answer anything about it. I wasn’t fooled.

        A Beatles reunion… when? Did you really just say “the mid 80s”?!
        A Beatles reunion without John Lennon?!
        Are you completely daft?

        What has a 1988 comment by Harrison about his relationship with McCartney got to do with a Beatles reunion?

        I’ll tell you what is provable, Opher, was the simple fact that there was no reunion in the 1980s. FFS!
        You walked into that hole left by yourself, didn’t you?!

        How can you contend “the seeds were there by 1980” when you’ve just quoted that Harrison had said in 1988 “for the past 10-12 years I haven’t known Paul”. Which therefore means 12 years ago was 1976. Which means in 1980 he had absolutely no relationship with him at all.
        Not even the death of John Lennon brought these 2 any closer.
        So I’m afraid you’re woffling a load of bullshit again.

        You didn’t know enough about CSNY to even make judgement here.
        You posted a post so out of date that it was laughable.
        I don’t think you even knew about Nash’s falling out with Crosby until I brought it to your attention.
        Because had you known about it you would have revised the conclusion at the end of your post to reflect this.
        You didn’t and left it 3 years out of date, which pretty much about summed up where you were in terms of being up to speed with the story – 3 years out of date.
        It was obvious that this was the case with you.

        I’m still laughing. A 1980s Beatles reunion with John Lennon!
        Fuck off!

      6. You are a joke Andrew. I don’t need chapter and verse. Your facts don’t shed all the light. Neither was I saying about any Beatles reunion without John. Once again you jump in with both feet. If John had not been killed I reckon they would have been back together in the mid eighties – all conjecture and no means of saying one way or another. George and John had a stormy relationship and George and Paul even worse, but the signs by 1980 were that it was possible they might reconcile. There were enough tentative moves.

  2. My facts do absolutely shed light.
    The trouble with you is that you haven’t got ANY facts. NOT ANY!
    You don’t even know what Lennon had to say in 1980.
    You find that out and then you’ll have to retract your statement about my facts not shedding any light.
    FFS Opher, I even give you 3 direct pointers for you to go and get the information you need and what to you go and do? You do nothing but repeat yourself again. What a chump!
    Listen and Lennon will tell you himself, in his own words how fucking way wrong you are.

    Tell me what you know or don’t know about “Davlen”.

    1. I’ve listened to enough Lennon to know he was up and down. What he said one minute about McCartney was different the next.
      I stand by what I said. Why try to score points all the time Andrew? Is it some great insecurity.

      1. I don’t think you actually realise the extent or lack of extent with regards any Lennon interviews where he discusses his relationship with McCartney.
        So you talking utter bollocks there.

        What’s the point in you standing by what you said?
        Especially when it was proved to be incorrect!

        It’s got nothing to do with insecurity. That’s reflective by your diatribe here, now,
        But what it has got to do with is that if you are going to tell a story, for goodness sake get the facts right.
        Don’t be making stuff up.

        So, obviously you know nothing about “Davlen”
        And you’ve got the fucking cheek to be talking about Beatles reunions and you know nothing about “Davlen”.
        Fuck off with you.

      2. As I say one hundred times over – all you do is pedantically pedal shit and try your hardest to divert attention from the issues or thrust of the post – either by personal insult or blowing some minor thing out of all proportion – usually to self-promote your own self and ego.
        What I said was correct. I did not go into details because that was not the nature of the post. Do your own blog if you want a string of boring facts.
        How you choose to interpret it is up to you.
        I refuse to engage in juvenile stupidity of one-upmanship over silly tests you want me to undertake. It seems to me that reference to a mythical recording session in the mid seventies that did not take place only serves to strengthen my view that they would quite probably have reformed at some point – possibly by the mid-eighties. But that is all supposition.

      3. Roll back Opher.
        You said that they had “patched up”.
        I disagreed for very good reason.

        You obviously never heard Harrison’s interview in 1977, which he gave the BBC.
        There was no way whatsoever he would be ever involved with Beatles anything had you heard this.

        I’m glad you bothered to find out about Davlen.
        This is prime example of all the total nonsense about The Beatles that bounces all over the internet continuously and relentlessly.
        Tell me, how does a myth actually strengthen a view?
        What logic is applied there?
        You’re radio rental, Opher.

      4. As you well know – people say all sorts of things and then they backtrack. They fall out and get back.
        I think when it comes to intuition on things like this I leave you dead in the water.

      5. Oh right. Like how you displayed your powers of perception with Leonard Cohen’s comments a couple of months ago.

        Where you couldn’t quite grasp my point that LC perhaps didn’t have long to go and you just couldn’t see it.
        I had to extract the mechanical words for you to highlight what was going on.
        I think you were left tits up there, eh?
        You think you have intuition? Don’t make me laugh.

        You’ve still never heard that 1977 Harrison interview, have you?
        Please do Opher. It will crush your imagination into dust.

        You do realise it was Harrison who put a stop to stuff with McCartney and Starr in 1995.
        He pulled the cord on all of that as they had intended to record at least 5 new/old songs. He had even written one with McCartney, ‘All For Love’, but couldn’t take his bullshit and walked.
        Yet Harrison had no problem with Starr, as evidence proves by his frequent appearance on his albums.

        Personally, had Lennon lived, I really don’t think it would have come to anything, because of the Harrison / McCartney relationship as opposed to the more obvious Lennon / McCartney.
        I don’t think too many people give enough consideration towards that.

      6. No I didn’t want to think of Len dying. I had too recent an image of him in my head skipping on to stage.
        All conjecture Andrew. Unlike you I do not catalogue the interviews I listen to or read. There are loads. I just read or listen to them out of interest. I could not tell you which I’ve listened to or which I haven’t. I don’t make it a Dr of Philosophy degree project.

      7. This is where your lack of coordination fails you as despite your belief, there are actually not loads of interviews that contain any discourse on any Beatles reformation.
        There are very few.
        Hence, why I pointed you in the direction of Harrison’s BBC 1977 interview.

      8. But I didn’t say there were. I said I have reads loads. They give an indication of their attitude on the day of the interview. You can see the changing views.

      9. Given what you’ve just said and the apparent confusion, this doesn’t detract from the documented evidence.
        Not once in his post-Beatle life did Harrison ever suffer from “changing views”. Wild horses could not have dragged him back.
        Not once in his post-Beatle life did Lennon ever utter anything remotely indicating that a reunion would be a possibility.
        I wouldn’t know about McCartney as I was never much interested in his music or what he had to say about anything.

      10. It’s not a question of my own view.
        It’s a question of what information is contained within any of these interviews, whether on tape or written, none of which are any secret and easily accessible on the internet.
        And what you have suggested is devoid of any such backup from any of these interviews.
        That was the point I was making.
        I realise my point was based on factual accuracy and I know how much you hate that sort of thing, especially when it is deemed to be spoiling a perfectly good fantasy sequence.
        However, there’s nothing wrong with dreaming.

      11. And that’s the exact juncture where you are in speculative mode as there is no “feel” to have.
        Otherwise we’d have seen a huge number of books written by the real serious Beatles scholars making mountains out of your imaginary little mole hill.
        We would be extremely familiar with the interviews where such combined wishful speculation of the Fabs could be found. I’ve yet to see any!

      12. I doubt it and there aren’t any.
        There aren’t any for very good reason.
        Publishers can’t afford to publish trash.

        There’s tons of independently published Beatles related stuff covering all manner of lunacy.

      13. I’ve read my share of dry, boring stuff about the Beatles. I might write mine sometime. I certainly wouldn’t string a load of dry facts together, that’s for sure.

      14. But you couldn’t do the dry factual type stuff. You have to know a great deal in order for that to work well. You don’t inhabit that world.
        Besides, it’s all been done by the really serious anorak people.
        There’s books on theories that Paul died in `66 and the guy running around today is Faul. There’s crap everywhere.
        That said, you need to know all the dry factual stuff if you want to understand the Beatles and their music. They lived and breathed that stuff making these records, making these tape copy bounces making space for more tracks for move overdubs. That’s exactly how they operated, dry and factual.

      15. No. Totally disagree. Experimental and willing to absorb ideas and try different things. That’s not dry and factual. It’s the idiots who analyse their every move who are as dead as doormats.

      16. Oh – and I’ve had to do my share of dry, factual stuff. That’s one thing I’m glad I don’t have to do again. The sterility of it is numbing.
        I want something that lives and breathes.

      17. You obviously never read Mark Lewisohn’s Complete Beatles Chronicle.
        I think they were let down a little by Magic Alex on the experimental front.
        They were in the wrong place with the wrong people.
        Come 1966, they should have been making their records with people like Paul Rothschild.

      18. What sort of comment is that?

        It certainly occurred to me that their records could have been technically so much better had they used people such as Rothschild – who recorded The Doors. The possibilities could have been amazing.

      19. They seemed to do alright to me. Their later stuff was very cutting edge with all manner of novel techniques and incorporation of styles and technology. They were at the forefront. I wouldn’t knock them at all. I don’t see how anyone can criticise the inventiveness and adventure they brought to bear.

      20. You’re confusing ideas with technology. I was talking about the technology available to them in London. I wasn’t talking ideas.
        Forefront? Ha ha.
        Think Hendrix, that was forefront.
        They weren’t even close to being cutting edge!
        They were so behind in terms of technical conditions compared to say Gold Star Studios.
        Their records would have sounded better had they made them in America.

      21. I wouldn’t complain. Abbey Road studio was perhaps not as state of the art but they were not short of ideas, techniques and adventurousness. The result was brilliance and a range of groundbreaking sounds. They incorporated an incredible range and checked out everything.
        Their stuff was right out there and also highly successful. Sounds brilliant to me. I wouldn’t have changed a thing.

      22. Perhaps too much nostalgia and not enough practical criticism.
        The production on the White Album was at best patchy.
        Abbey Road had quite a muffled sound on the acoustic instruments.
        Let It Be was just a disaster.

        I would have changed a lot of things.
        Firstly, a decent producer.
        Secondly, decent studios conducive to a 4-piece band. A four-piece band sitting in a large airy room suitable for chamber orchestras does not bode well for recording rock ‘n roll music. The production sucked at lot of the time.
        Because of the crumby EMI equipment so much of the clarity of their recordings suffered because of the bounce down from tape to tape, losing a generation every time.
        I’m beginning to wonder what you’re listening to this on because with today’s technology it’s very easy to hear the difference between Take 1 of a song and the final version that’s been bounced down several times. It’s obvious just how much was lost because of that old fashioned recording equipment.

      23. My sound system, when I finally get it up and running again, is nowhere near state of the art. It’s good enough for me. I like the music and not the production. I can appreciate it on an old car stereo or an MP3. I’m not into gold leads and systems that are worth thousands of pounds.
        And yes, there is probably quite a bit of nostalgia, but if the music doesn’t hold up then it’s useless. With the Beatles the music holds up fine.

      24. Well that therefore means that you’re talking about an entirely different thing.
        I wasn’t and quite obviously wasn’t talking about whether I liked the music or not. I was on about the quality of that recorded sound in compare to what it could have been.
        And nowadays given the digital platform, we can hear all that ever so clearly.

        I can recommend that when you do get around to wiring up your stereo, to get a Blu-ray player – if you’ve not got one.
        They aren’t expensive now at all and in Tesco and Asda for not a lot.
        Anyway, they will play your CDs so much better than your stand alone CD player will. You’ll instantly hear the difference.

  3. Pingback: URL

I'd like to hear from you...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.