Home Rocky Road

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

Re: Yoko Ono ...

Once again, thanks for your thoughtful comments and sharing your perspective on this issue. I enjoyed reading your response, though, as you might imagine, I am not totally persuaded. I can't address all of your points, though I might pose a few counter points.

It is my opinion that her so called experimental "vocalizations" are given far more credit than they deserve. Ever here of a song called "Surfin' Bird" by the Trash Men? That was 1963. But I have to admit, Yoko's imitation of a Rock Lobster is the best one I've ever heard. (Just kiddin'!)

Incidentally, I think the B-52's are enormously talented. I'm surprised you are somewhat dismissive of them. They had a unique style, and quirky, wonderfully satirical lyrics. Their output was certainly uneven, but they produced a number of real gems.

I know you didn't quite compare Ono to Ives, et al. But you referred to John Cage as an atonal composer, which, to my mind, is not quite true. Cage was a proponent of the idea of alleatory music, which is to say, music by chance or accident. It might be said that Ono's music, when she actually made it, was accidental, but this is not quite the same thing. (Sorry, just kiddin' again.) But to the main point. I threw Ives and Stravinsky in because they are viewed as atonal and polyrythmic composers. Though the result of Cage's musical approach was sometimes atonal and polyrythmic, this was not actually his aim.

Your references to Ono's early musical credentials is interesting. These are things I didn't know and will certainly endeavor to find out more about. However, in the end, they strike me as somewhat thin. After all, she has left behind no body of work that many people are taking seriously, or even listening to these days. (But then, they walked out on "The Rite of Spring" in Paris in 1913.) And I think this is where I would disagree with your analogy to Pollack and Warhol. Whatever one might think of their work, they each left behind a substantial body of material that garners great critical attention. Warhol, though, like Ono, had a flair for self-promotion and knew the importance of running with the right crowd. It's an intriguing comparison in this light, and I wonder to what degree Warhol's great successes and his tactics might have influenced someone like Ono -- but this would be pure speculation on my part. As an aside, on Pollack's score, I can say that I have seen a number of his canvases first hand, and they are absolutely stunning. But I digress.

Finally, with respect to the kernal of our differening view, whether or not Ono was an overweaning barnacle or a valued collaborator and companion, I guess it all depends of your perspective -- i.e., whether you are looking at it from John's perspective or the perspective of a Beatle's fan. John could take her just about anywhere he damned pleased. That doesn't make it right. And, I would add, taking your girlfriend to the office is always, on some level, a bit indecorous. Ono will always seem shameless and inconsiderate of the other members of the band, at least to me.

John Lennon, as an artist, was doing just fine thank you before he ever heard the name Yoko. Ono was laboring in near obscurity until she met Lennon. It is clear, too, that Ono used her relationship with Lennon for her own personal aggrandizement. I guess you can't blame Lennon in the end for being complicit in this. But don't be so hard on those of us who, after seeing a clip from the "Let it Be" sessions with "the great interloper" present, shutter a bit.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  The Cable Cooker  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.