I don't know how I became Yoko's defender here, but everything you say is false.
First off, your "heroes" (Lennon and yes, even MacCartney) thought Yoko was a great artist so how can you speak so highly of them and yet simultaneously think their opinions are worthless? Secondly, I'm a two time Art School graduate myself and was *in* Art School when Yoko was doing her conceptual art schtick, and you are completely wrong about how other artists thought of her. She was a well-respected conceptual artist with popular shows and a published author.
She didn't actually need the Beatles to be famous, she already was in her own right.
PS - "Everyman has a woman who loves him" (by Yoko) beats out half the junk on the white album by a country mile. Or, alternatively, if Yoko Ono's wailings are junk, then half the stuff on the white album is again, far worse, and less melodic junk.
If Yoko's screeching can in any way be construed as "art" in your mind, then then we'll have to agree to disagree about what does and doesn't constitute art.
I'd submit that the weirder parts of the White Album (vast parts of the second record) are unlistenable precisely because Yoko was trying to pull John Lennon into the whole experimental music thing. It was that direction (and meddling where she didn't belong) which eventually led to the end of the Beatles. Given what the Beatles could have morphed into with Yoko acting as a full partner, I'm actually good with that.
It is unlikely then, that I will ever buy another Beatles song.
Buh Bye, Beatles!
Quote:
Originally Posted by s4mb4
last time i checked, i could not download original Black Sabbath records either... so why all the hype over the Beatles. Ozzy was just as influential as Lennon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackTheRat
iTunes without The Beatles, who cares?
I found the Steve Jobs pizza story more relevant and compelling!
Nothing more pathetic than an old rich hippie. Of course this does not surprise me So far all they have done with al their money is plant a tree in someplace called strawberry field .IMAGINE
So you'd wish death on another human being just because she's said something that rankles with you? The polar opposite of what her late husband advocated I believe.
I think a lot of people want her to die frankly. She's been much of the reasons for the band's breaking up in the first place now she's more than likely the one stonewalling the release of the music onto other formats such as iTunes.
I thought it was funny - in a black kinda way (no offence to to blacks you self-righteous "defender of wholesomeness"
You have no idea how or how much I contribute to society - and probably to you and your family.
Get back in your own hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
It's not funny to imply someone should be murdered (your reference to Chapman). It's so easy for someone like you to criticize famous people - what have you ever done? Go back into your hole.
I think a lot of people want her to die frankly. She's been much of the reasons for the band's breaking up in the first place now she's more than likely the one stonewalling the release of the music onto other formats such as iTunes.
The breakup of the Beatles was John Lennon fault. His inability to separate his relationships with women, and his already established art/business partners. This lingering back and forth is a direct consequence of his mismanagement of his own affairs. Then again, John always was an elitist douche, his reasoning and 'ideologies' changed with the weather to fit whatever trend or behavior he was following that day. Sad that he was murdered, but the last decade of Lennon's life, he was pretty oblivious to most things, including his art. Just 'Imagine' all the 'Yesterdays'. Though toward the end he was showing signs of separating with Yoko, it's too bad that he instead left it where his bandmates and children were saddled with this stupid woman.
Speaking of which, Yoko Ono went out of her way to ruin Julian Lennon's career. She's an evil hag who used her position to threaten Julian Lennon from even using father's name in print. I'm no Bealtes fan or apologist, but anyone trying to paint Yoko as a 'poor widow' or even 'relevant artist' in her own right is totally full of it. Her family was super wealthy and she just bought herself a 'modern art' career, she never did anything of consequence before she met John beyond being a heiress who scribbled some crap every now and then.
The problem here is that Yoko's too greedy, McCartney's too drugged out and Ringo's too content jamming with his friends to care about music that's 40-50 years old. They just don't care, and only respond when hit with these questions at a press conference. Do any of them even have computers? I'll bet there's a 90% chance 2 out 3 have never even used one.
How did you expect people to take that? Personally, I thought it was just plain sick. It definitely didn't seem like the kind of thing a "contributor to society" would write.
When the Stones reissued their reworked album recently, Jagger said something that I think is true: he said, roughly, that recording artists never made as much money before or since. Music did help change the culture then. And they, the big artists, got real slices of the deal instead of being treated as peons. Once that era was over, the labels closed up and didn't give breaks that good again.
It seems I'm an idiot then. I have no problem with, for example, Pink Floyd only wanting me to buy the whole album. Wish You Were Here for example only really makes sense as a whole body of work. Have A Cigar is a bizzarre song if not contained within the context of the album. If you see musicians as artists (and I acknowledge that many are not, they are just singers), then I think you need to accept that they want their work to be seen/heard in a certain way.
While I understand Pink Floyd not wanting to have individual songs available, their albums really should be listened to as a whole, I'm curious as to why they sold 45's in the first place - especially the song, Have a Cigar.
And I do agree with folks here too, I have all the Beatles music I could want on CD and can put into iTunes, don't need EMI to help me with that.
But I do disagree with some of the posts about Yoko, I always liked her as an artist, "Hell in Paradise" is one of my favorite songs. I also don't feel that she was the one force to single-handedly disband the Beatles, there were other "issues" including, the burnout of the band, John Lennon's heroin abuse, Paul's self esteem issues, Epstein's death and George's spiritual issues (come on, seriously, who in their right mind would follow that fake TM guru guy!), Yoko was the catalyst, but man it was coming way before she showed up.
And mentioning Chapman is crass beyond belief, seriously that is sick. I remember the day and the minute I received a call from a friend telling me John Lennon was shot, my first words... is he dead? the answer... yes. My life changed in that moment. ( I grew up with the Beatles, Rubber Soul was the first album I ever owned)
If, and I say "IF" Yoko did something to block Julian's career, that is certainly bad and condemnable, but I haven't yet found evidence of that (reading wikipedia right now)
Who cares about your assessment of my (substantial) contribution to society.
Like I said - it will be a great day when she moves on. She sucked. She was a divisive, untalented waste of paper and digital print. Get a sense of humour - or go back to bible study.
How did you expect people to take that? Personally, I thought it was just plain sick. It definitely didn't seem like the kind of thing a "contributor to society" would write.
OK, I just couldn't resist putting my own two cents in here.
I would suspect that many posters here are unaware that the UK and US versions of many of the Beatles original LP's were completely different.
For example, Rubber Soul, in it's current CD formats, whether the latest digitally remastered CDs, or the earlier CD releases, are only the UK versions. They contain songs that I remember being on another LP that was shunned at the time due to it's original artwork of the Beatles posed as butchers, with dolls of babies with limbs and heads removed, mixed in with actual butchers meats. It has often been seen their own protest of war in general and Vietnam it particular. The album was named "Yesterday and Today". When the album cover caused an uproar, capital reissued the album with a more sedate shot of the Beatles posed around large travel trunks.
Yesterday and Today contained Capitals mix of hit singles with other works intended for or already in production as UK albums. This is where the changes in track listings occurs. "Drive My Car" appears here and on the UK Rubber Soul; "I'm Only Sleeping" appears here and also on "Revolver" and so on. The album was released perhaps eight months prior to the US (Capital) version of "Rubber Soul". When Revolver and Rubber Soul were released, it signaled a greater change to those of us who followed the Beatles that they were no longer just a great Rock band. They were more serious studio musicians. More thoughtful, more social commentary, and soon on.
I, for one, was very excited that they digitally remastered the catalogue - right up to the point where I realized they would only be the UK versions. This is a problem for me, as "Rubber Soul" will forever in my mind open with the song "I've Just Seen a Face" - NOT "Drive My Car".
For those that say "Bah. Music is music." in my mind just don't get it. Memories are memories - and that's a good thing. If you are younger and don't think that memory is important, perhaps reading "Animal Farm" is in order.
But it also is about listening to something the way you expect it to be. My argument being it is rather unsettling somehow to put on the remastered Rubber Soul, expecting "I've Just Seen a Face" and getting "Drive My Car".
Change is often a good thing, but for me not in this case. The funny thing was when I showed the difference to my brothers and sisters, they all went "Ah, I couldn't put my finger on it why it didn't sound the same". The fact that the Beatles recorded many of there songs in mono and/or early, crude versions of stereo ( guitar, right channel; voice, left channel - no crossover, no fade) was hard enough to get used to with the first attempts at remastering. The new digitally remastered versions managed to correct that issue by adding depth and clarity without making it sound so odd.
I solved my own problem by purchasing the necessary portion of the digitally remastered catalogue, then using iTunes to reset the tracks to what I once owned on vinyl - problem solved. Having them DRM-free allowed my to create my own discs for my sisters and brothers. Please note that they already owned the same digitally remastered albums. This just allowed them to listen to the CDs with the same tracks as the vinyl versions we once had.
Comments
This is nonsense.
I don't know how I became Yoko's defender here, but everything you say is false.
First off, your "heroes" (Lennon and yes, even MacCartney) thought Yoko was a great artist so how can you speak so highly of them and yet simultaneously think their opinions are worthless? Secondly, I'm a two time Art School graduate myself and was *in* Art School when Yoko was doing her conceptual art schtick, and you are completely wrong about how other artists thought of her. She was a well-respected conceptual artist with popular shows and a published author.
She didn't actually need the Beatles to be famous, she already was in her own right.
PS - "Everyman has a woman who loves him" (by Yoko) beats out half the junk on the white album by a country mile. Or, alternatively, if Yoko Ono's wailings are junk, then half the stuff on the white album is again, far worse, and less melodic junk.
If Yoko's screeching can in any way be construed as "art" in your mind, then then we'll have to agree to disagree about what does and doesn't constitute art.
I'd submit that the weirder parts of the White Album (vast parts of the second record) are unlistenable precisely because Yoko was trying to pull John Lennon into the whole experimental music thing. It was that direction (and meddling where she didn't belong) which eventually led to the end of the Beatles. Given what the Beatles could have morphed into with Yoko acting as a full partner, I'm actually good with that.
It is unlikely then, that I will ever buy another Beatles song.
Buh Bye, Beatles!
last time i checked, i could not download original Black Sabbath records either... so why all the hype over the Beatles. Ozzy was just as influential as Lennon.
iTunes without The Beatles, who cares?
I found the Steve Jobs pizza story more relevant and compelling!
WOW... new low. I can't even believe you said this.
On a more related note, just pop your CD into iTunes & go from there.
Didn't Michael Jackson purchase the catalog many years ago? Maybe he had to sell it when things were tough.
Yeah, outbid McCartney for the publishing rights but the original tracks and mixes are something else.
So you'd wish death on another human being just because she's said something that rankles with you? The polar opposite of what her late husband advocated I believe.
I think a lot of people want her to die frankly. She's been much of the reasons for the band's breaking up in the first place now she's more than likely the one stonewalling the release of the music onto other formats such as iTunes.
You have no idea how or how much I contribute to society - and probably to you and your family.
Get back in your own hole.
It's not funny to imply someone should be murdered (your reference to Chapman). It's so easy for someone like you to criticize famous people - what have you ever done? Go back into your hole.
In my opinion, she doesn't deserve a dime; she's part of the reason the Beatles split up in the first place.
If the others have no problems, and have explicitly stated as much, then she really is on a personal agenda.
I think a lot of people want her to die frankly. She's been much of the reasons for the band's breaking up in the first place now she's more than likely the one stonewalling the release of the music onto other formats such as iTunes.
The breakup of the Beatles was John Lennon fault. His inability to separate his relationships with women, and his already established art/business partners. This lingering back and forth is a direct consequence of his mismanagement of his own affairs. Then again, John always was an elitist douche, his reasoning and 'ideologies' changed with the weather to fit whatever trend or behavior he was following that day. Sad that he was murdered, but the last decade of Lennon's life, he was pretty oblivious to most things, including his art. Just 'Imagine' all the 'Yesterdays'. Though toward the end he was showing signs of separating with Yoko, it's too bad that he instead left it where his bandmates and children were saddled with this stupid woman.
Speaking of which, Yoko Ono went out of her way to ruin Julian Lennon's career. She's an evil hag who used her position to threaten Julian Lennon from even using father's name in print. I'm no Bealtes fan or apologist, but anyone trying to paint Yoko as a 'poor widow' or even 'relevant artist' in her own right is totally full of it. Her family was super wealthy and she just bought herself a 'modern art' career, she never did anything of consequence before she met John beyond being a heiress who scribbled some crap every now and then.
The problem here is that Yoko's too greedy, McCartney's too drugged out and Ringo's too content jamming with his friends to care about music that's 40-50 years old. They just don't care, and only respond when hit with these questions at a press conference. Do any of them even have computers? I'll bet there's a 90% chance 2 out 3 have never even used one.
I thought it was funny - in a black kinda way (no offence to to blacks you self-righteous "defender of wholesomeness"
You have no idea how or how much I contribute to society - and probably to you and your family.
Get back in your own hole.
Dude, spare us the righteous indignation.
Your post was titled: "Where's Mark David Chapman when you need him.."
How did you expect people to take that? Personally, I thought it was just plain sick. It definitely didn't seem like the kind of thing a "contributor to society" would write.
It seems I'm an idiot then. I have no problem with, for example, Pink Floyd only wanting me to buy the whole album. Wish You Were Here for example only really makes sense as a whole body of work. Have A Cigar is a bizzarre song if not contained within the context of the album. If you see musicians as artists (and I acknowledge that many are not, they are just singers), then I think you need to accept that they want their work to be seen/heard in a certain way.
While I understand Pink Floyd not wanting to have individual songs available, their albums really should be listened to as a whole, I'm curious as to why they sold 45's in the first place - especially the song, Have a Cigar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Fl...graphy#Singles
And I do agree with folks here too, I have all the Beatles music I could want on CD and can put into iTunes, don't need EMI to help me with that.
But I do disagree with some of the posts about Yoko, I always liked her as an artist, "Hell in Paradise" is one of my favorite songs. I also don't feel that she was the one force to single-handedly disband the Beatles, there were other "issues" including, the burnout of the band, John Lennon's heroin abuse, Paul's self esteem issues, Epstein's death and George's spiritual issues (come on, seriously, who in their right mind would follow that fake TM guru guy!), Yoko was the catalyst, but man it was coming way before she showed up.
And mentioning Chapman is crass beyond belief, seriously that is sick. I remember the day and the minute I received a call from a friend telling me John Lennon was shot, my first words... is he dead? the answer... yes. My life changed in that moment. ( I grew up with the Beatles, Rubber Soul was the first album I ever owned)
If, and I say "IF" Yoko did something to block Julian's career, that is certainly bad and condemnable, but I haven't yet found evidence of that (reading wikipedia right now)
Didn't Michael Jackson purchase the catalog many years ago?
Yeah. Paul McCartney told him Michael should get into publishing and he turned to Paul and said, "I'm going to get yours" and kind of laughed.
Who cares what you thought?
Who cares what anyone else thought?
Who cares about your assessment of my (substantial) contribution to society.
Like I said - it will be a great day when she moves on. She sucked. She was a divisive, untalented waste of paper and digital print. Get a sense of humour - or go back to bible study.
F*&k off.
Dude, spare us the righteous indignation.
Your post was titled: "Where's Mark David Chapman when you need him.."
How did you expect people to take that? Personally, I thought it was just plain sick. It definitely didn't seem like the kind of thing a "contributor to society" would write.
I would suspect that many posters here are unaware that the UK and US versions of many of the Beatles original LP's were completely different.
For example, Rubber Soul, in it's current CD formats, whether the latest digitally remastered CDs, or the earlier CD releases, are only the UK versions. They contain songs that I remember being on another LP that was shunned at the time due to it's original artwork of the Beatles posed as butchers, with dolls of babies with limbs and heads removed, mixed in with actual butchers meats. It has often been seen their own protest of war in general and Vietnam it particular. The album was named "Yesterday and Today". When the album cover caused an uproar, capital reissued the album with a more sedate shot of the Beatles posed around large travel trunks.
Yesterday and Today contained Capitals mix of hit singles with other works intended for or already in production as UK albums. This is where the changes in track listings occurs. "Drive My Car" appears here and on the UK Rubber Soul; "I'm Only Sleeping" appears here and also on "Revolver" and so on. The album was released perhaps eight months prior to the US (Capital) version of "Rubber Soul". When Revolver and Rubber Soul were released, it signaled a greater change to those of us who followed the Beatles that they were no longer just a great Rock band. They were more serious studio musicians. More thoughtful, more social commentary, and soon on.
I, for one, was very excited that they digitally remastered the catalogue - right up to the point where I realized they would only be the UK versions. This is a problem for me, as "Rubber Soul" will forever in my mind open with the song "I've Just Seen a Face" - NOT "Drive My Car".
For those that say "Bah. Music is music." in my mind just don't get it. Memories are memories - and that's a good thing. If you are younger and don't think that memory is important, perhaps reading "Animal Farm" is in order.
But it also is about listening to something the way you expect it to be. My argument being it is rather unsettling somehow to put on the remastered Rubber Soul, expecting "I've Just Seen a Face" and getting "Drive My Car".
Change is often a good thing, but for me not in this case. The funny thing was when I showed the difference to my brothers and sisters, they all went "Ah, I couldn't put my finger on it why it didn't sound the same". The fact that the Beatles recorded many of there songs in mono and/or early, crude versions of stereo ( guitar, right channel; voice, left channel - no crossover, no fade) was hard enough to get used to with the first attempts at remastering. The new digitally remastered versions managed to correct that issue by adding depth and clarity without making it sound so odd.
I solved my own problem by purchasing the necessary portion of the digitally remastered catalogue, then using iTunes to reset the tracks to what I once owned on vinyl - problem solved. Having them DRM-free allowed my to create my own discs for my sisters and brothers. Please note that they already owned the same digitally remastered albums. This just allowed them to listen to the CDs with the same tracks as the vinyl versions we once had.
He never said that he wished her dead. Don't put words in peoples mouths.
Ah, you must have missed the title of the OP's post? You know the "Where's Mark David Chapman when you need him..." part?
What else could would you imply from that? That the OP wanted Chapman to have tea with Yoko to help her see the error of her ways?
No, wait. It just occurred to me. You don't even know who Mark David Chapman IS, do you?