Home Rocky Road

From Classic Rock to Progessive to hip hop to today's hot new tunes!

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Rocky Road ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Re: Yoko Ono ...

Well...'this kind of crap' pretty much sums up how I feel about those sorts of queries at this point. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about why Lennon might've wanted her there, but, more to the point, if he wasn't 'allowed' to bring her, she wouldn't have been there. But it had always been considered 'his' band. McCartney had taken the reins to an extent. Maybe he didn't like that. Maybe he did want to do something to offend the others so he could leave in some way easier than just walking out. I don't know, and I don't know who does. The only answer to the question that makes any sense, though, is that he wanted her to be there. If he didn't, then one would think there would've been some speculation at some point over the past 4 decades that she figured her way in...like a 'barnacle.' But it looks more like she was an invited guest.


>I think it's a bit of a strectch to confer her with "musical credentials." Could she play and instrument? Not to my knowledge. But correct me if I am wrong. Did she have any prior musical experience as a performer before she "met" John?

I have read in many places that she did receive classical training in piano, and AMG says that she was also schooled in opera. I don't remember exactly where I read this, but she was supposedly a music teacher in the NYC Public Schools in 1956. On Wikipedia there's a mention of something I'd seen somewhere else, that she was involved with a collaboration with Ornette Coleman in the early 60s. And she put on a musical performance in one of Carnegie Hall's smaller rooms, not the main hall, but still...all of this before the Beatles had a recording contract.

Having read stuff like this is part of what leads me to wonder why people still put forth this, as I put it, 'crap.' Another part is what I heard on 'Rock Lobster,' which is a detail Lennon was careful to point out in one of his later interviews, probably the one he did in Playboy in late 1980 (which is probably the 2nd best Lennon interview I ever read). On that rec you can hear her vocal stylings newly interpreted, and there are others that offer variations. Now, I'm not a big B-52's fan, and I think 'Rock Lobster' would be just as well off without the shrieks. But it's part of what makes that song what it is, and if that's not a direct influence, I don't know what is. But hell, Serge Gainsbourg did pretty much the same thing on Histoire Du Melody Nelson, which is the best album of his that I've heard. I could give two shits for the B-52s, really, but Gainsbourg is a guy with a body of work I think is significant...which is something else that may place me firmly into 'sophisticate' territory. I don't care. THAT guy was the shit, and while it doesn't have to mean anything at all, it can't be denied: he was copying Ono-style vocals, in 1971, on what I think is a great rock album in a time when I don't think there was a lot of great rock music.


>Her rather outrageous vocalizations, in my opinion, we simply a ruse that she knew would garner her more attention, an activity that seemed to be her chief preoccupation.

Which brings us to the concept of the role the con plays in any & all of the forms we collectively refer to as 'art.' From what I've come to understand about Jackson Pollock, he considered his work (his most noteworthy work) to be a con on a certain level, and was consumed with loathing and self-loathing because he couldn't accept taking himself or his work seriously. And his artistic legacy was succeeded by a gang of people who created stuff that, I think, could reasonably be considered a con on some level. Warhol comes to mind, of course. But what nobody seems to take into consideration is that there was a time when Yoko Ono & Andy Warhol were, relatively speaking, contemporaries. Peers. Which has nothing to do with music, of course, but she ran in circles with a lot of artists...who might on some level be considered 'con' artists. Uhhh...did you ever read Lennon's "In His Own Write?" Maybe not a con, perhaps that's harsh. But it's certainly not straightforward, and I think it could be reasonably described as 'eccentric.' Beyond his Beatles songs, he possessed plenty of artistic conceits that could invite all sorts of colorful ways to describe them. His bond with Ono makes a lot of sense to me.


>to compare her to atonal modernist composers like Ives or the great Stravinsky is, well, let's just say it's unwarranted.

Probably, but I never made that comparison, and never would. Instead, I'll bore you with a lengthy, but necessary aside.

A few years ago, on another board, someone was complaining about how Zappa must've had to feel, being on that stage with Yoko Ono, something along those lines. You know, he's this great musician & artist, and she was a noisemaking hack, blah blah. I poked around & realized a six-degrees-of-separation link that adds just a bit of perspective to this discussion, which, honestly, I tire of, but always feel compelled to participate in, due to the sorts of attitudes that seem to lurk behind the sorts of posts I was referring to. Anyway--Zappa, as many know, collaborated with Captain Beefheart, perhaps most notably on Trout Mask Replica. Beefheart, a little later on in his career, employed a guitarist named Gary Lucas. Lucas had a band called Gods & Monsters, from the 1980s, I believe, up to the present. The drummer in that band was & I believe still is, a guy named Jonathan Kane. Who has been involved in quite a few avant-garde-type projects himself, including an outfit called the Forever Bad Blues Band. Its leader is LaMonte Young, who in 1960 had quite a bit to do with the concerts & other Fluxus events that took place in Yoko Ono's loft...this is of course a pointless retelling of something that had once occurred to me, and was confirmed with a few seconds of research.

Stravinsky, Ives? Perhaps not. Musical credentials? I say yes.


>I didn't know that she was instrumental in 'Revolution 9," which is an interesting experimental recording.

Well, I don't know that for sure, either. But it makes sense that Lennon followed his muse more specifically once he had forged a bond with someone who shared it more than Beatles fans would perhaps like to admit. Based on his hookup with Ono in early 1968, it makes some sense that her influence had something to do with his decision to place that recording on a Beatles album, at least to me. That said, I think he may have wanted to make experimental recordings like that previously, and I might've read something that indicated that he actually had, but that's a BEATLES record. That's quite a jump.


>let's also remember that Lennon and the Beatles were already headed well down this road as early as Revolver and Sgt. Pepper, which pre-date her "involvement."

That strengthens my point: the earliest 'experiment' in a non-pop, unconventional sense that I hear (outside of the Christmas records) is the backwards vocals at the end of 'Rain,' which was a B-side in June 1966. Revolver was a couple of months later, but I think Lennon's experiments were far less conventional than 'Love You To' or 'Eleanor 'Rigby': the backwards guitar lead on 'I'm Only Sleeping' (which might've been George Martin's idea for all I know), and, of course, 'Tomorrow Never Knows.' Lennon's still the guy with the most experimental stuff, so far as I can tell, up through 'Magical Mystery Tour': Sgt. Pepper is McCartney's, yeah, but I haven't let go of my suspicion that his awareness of SMiLE was a big factor--and when it comes to experimentation, to my ears, it has nothing on 'Lucy In The Sky,' 'Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite,' and, of course, 'A Day In The Life.' A few months later there's 'I Am The Walrus.' Point being, he was stretching out more than any of the other Beatles, being more experimental, and, in retrospect, it makes sense that he reached out to someone who was more like-minded artistically than the partner who was offering up stuff like 'Hello Goodbye' and 'Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da.'

Taking everything into consideration, is it a coincidence that the latter toon is on the same rec with Revolution 9?

>In fact, I would argue that Lennon's lyrics became much more pedestrian after Ono arrived.

Now that I have to disagree with. 'Happiness Is A Warm Gun' more 'pedestrian'? Than what? 'Julia?' 'I'm So Tired?' 'I Dig A Pony?' I don't think the lyrics are weak on 'Come Together' OR the 'Ballad Of John & Yoko.' Yeah, there's a tune like 'Everybody's Got Something To Hide,' but there's also 'Cry Baby,' and it's not like there wasn't a throwaway or two Lennon had managed in the past.


>The Plastic Ono Band album is compelling and raw, but it has none of the flair, lyrically or musically, as Lennon's previous work.

I'm not sure why it's supposed to. It's a different kind of record than anything he'd ever done before. It makes sense that a guy who writes stuff like 'In My Life' wanted to make a deeply introspective record. I hear it as more of an expression of emotion rather than the sort of storytelling on something like 'A Day In The Life' or 'Norwegian Wood,' or 'No Reply.' I certainly don't see the problem with the production, and it reminds me of Rick Rubin's work with Johnny Cash--and the Neil Diamond record from last year, as well. In other words, appropriate. As for the statement it makes, I think it might just be the single best 'singer-songwriter' album I've ever heard, at least as good as anything Dylan ever did, and flat-out better than anything I can name by other guys I admire--as a single, cohesive, album-length piece of work. I'm surprised you'd feel that way about it, but to each his own. Of course there are single tracks here & there that rank among my favorites, but...this is an album. And for the type of album it is, I've never heard anything better.


>By the New York City album with the Elephant's Memory Band, he has become a somewhat banal social critic, instead of a poet.

Or, as a friend of mine once put it, 'musically tapped out by 1972.' So who takes Some Time seriously? After that it's a matter of picking through the filler for an occasional gem. Which would describe most recording artists, with precious few exceptions, over the past several decades. And even those whose ratio of gems to filler is excellent tend to decline over time, or at least go through peaks & valleys. Lennon had an 8-year run from 'Please Please Me' through 'Imagine' that to me is better than anyone else, period...even though this or that person might seem better to me at this or that aspect of songwriting or music-making. Now, we could argue that all day long, and I probably listen to other people more frequently these days than I dig for late-period Beatles or the solo Lennon recs...but he was a guy who was interested in music beyond 'She Loves You,' and beyond 'Tomorrow Never Knows,' and if it was his band, I say he'd certainly earned the right to invite whatever wacko lunatic he was having sex with directly into the studio where a Beatles session was taking place. As for Elephant's Memory...I have no idea; I can only surmise that he wanted to work with a functioning unit, rather than a bunch of studio hacks thrown together like on all his other albums. Nor do I have much to say about her lyrics. Or art, for that matter. Like I said, I won't put myself in the position of defending it. My point is, he saw something there, and, apparently, so did a lot of other people, hence what I describe as her musical 'credentials.' But I did pose a question in the last post, and, assuming the claim that she collaborated with Ornette Coleman is true...how many Beatles fans do you really think knew who he was in 1969?

>What she was, at least to my thinking, was a publicity stunt artist. And in this regard, she had great talent, and great success. She managed to turn herself, and John, into social Messiahs of the 60's protest movement. I see her influence on John in lyrics like "Woman is the Nigger of the World" and "Give Peace a Chance." Raw, obvious, and superficial, yet pertinent to the times -- and tailored, I might cynically suggest, to a ready-made late 60's youth who taken it as an article of faith that all protest and change was good. It was the perfect perscription for the notortiety that I believe she sought so relentlessly. But her success in becoming a counter cultural icon was due to her association with and her ability to influence Lennon -- no mean feat. It was not something her own talents would ever have afforded her.

I agree completely.


>But you can't blame some of us for being offended by her presence at the "Let it Be" sessions, and even offering suggestions and criticisms of the other Beatles' performances, as has been reported.

Yeah, I kinda can, but only because I'm sick & tired of hearing about it. Does anybody actually think that the Let It Be Sessions would've gone any better if she hadn't been there? They had to be there at, what, 6 in the morning to film? Rehearsing & recording under film lights? Sure seems like the only one who actually wanted to be there was McCartney. Ringo had already quit once, and Harrison quit during these sessions, briefly, over something I'd guess had more to do with McCartney than Yoko Ono. But, hell, I wasn't there, so what do I know.

Whatever the circumstances, she'd performed in a building called "Carnegie Hall" before they did, and had worked extensively with a guy (Young) who played a significant role in the development of the early music of people like Lou Reed & John Cale (who was Young's collaborator in the Dream Syndicate). That she's credited with having worked with so many avant-garde weirdoes, well...there's a flipside to that: if you work with someone, and it goes well, doesn't it follow that you continue working with them? Her collaborations were, apparently, short-lived, and probably for a reason. Not the point. You still have to bring something to the table to get people who have developed reputations on the basis of their work, typically, to work with you; and, presumably, you learn or at least take something away from the experience of working with them. If she knew nothing, then it would stand to reason that there would've been some voices over the past several decades decrying her as a no-talent, dilettante, whatever. It's reasonable to assume that someone who did study classical piano and opera did indeed know something about music, and, therefore, was not hopelessly out of place in a music-making situation, especially if brought there by the leader of the outfit in question.


>It's like one of your buddy's girlfriends showed up on poker night and told everyone to put out the cigars and play a few hands of Old Maid because she thinks it's more fun.

Poor analogy. If it's poker night, it's at John Lennon's house, and it's with his consent that those terms are laid down. I mean, the Beatles were a ROCK band. What were string players doing at those Eleanor Rigby sessions anyway? Well, of course, they were hired hands. They had no input into the creative process. With Let It Be, Lennon obviously WANTED her input. And it's HIS band. And you as a Beatle fan are irritated by this? I don't have to like what the artist wants, what they want to achieve, or how they do it...but I have to accept it. So if you want to be 'offended' by that, that's fine...but I'll judge the work on its own merit as I perceive it. Otherwise you're getting into judging the person, and when it comes to Lennon, that can be complicated. And, to me, pointless. I care about the music. With Ono on board (regardless of whether or not she actually influenced the music), you have his contributions to the White Album & every Beatle record after that, plus the solo recs up through Mind Games. I have dozens of artists in my collection who could never dream of that sort of resume, even taking into consideration the Two Virgins/Zapple nonsense, side 2 of Live Peace In Toronto, the occasional crappy single like 'Power To The People,' AND the lousy Some Time.

I think it's beyond dispute that she's a shark, given her business acumen, what she did to grow Lennon's wealth, and with a healthy mean streak, given her treatment of Julian Lennon, at least that which has been reported. But I'm not disputing that she's a self-promoter, perhaps to the point of shamelessness, that she's a pretentious wad who transitioned throwaway concepts & half-baked 'ideas' into something we're forced to call 'art' even if we think it's a load of crap...simply because of the nature of the definition of art, which is...that it can't be defined. Which is enough to wave a white flag at her & say she's an artist. One that captivated the leader of the Beatles & is still blamed for the band's breakup (although Anita Pallenberg, interestingly, placed the blame on Linda Eastman). Lastly, to finish off this monster of a post, I'll put forth the opinion that had McCartney not forced the Let It Be sessions, the Beatles might've remained a unit, albeit looser, with perhaps no Abbey Road in their future, but a bunch of records that might've been put together as the White Album was: with each song featuring the main songwriter, and the other three 'merely' a backing unit. Less in the way of collaboration. A few years ago I made a CDR of songs from each of the first one or two Beatles solo albums (with the exception of the painfully obscure ones that nobody ever talks about, like Ringo's Sentimental Journey, et al), and found that I liked the idea that the best tunes from records like Ram, All Things Must Pass, Imagine, etc. sound like they could've been a White Album, Mark II. Actually, I have to say I like it more than the Let It Be/Abbey Road combo that was the actual path they followed. So in that I have to sort of, kind of blame McCartney for the breakup. Not that it matters. I just get tired of this 'Yoko sucks' stuff after all this time. We know...but it doesn't hurt to look at the big picture. There might be something that might just surprise someone...

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]