[adma]

In short, I am urban, but do not need to be a fan of Yoko, hip-hop or Boston City Hall Plaza. Given the moment, to me one is irrelevant, the other is noise, and another can be redeveloped. To mix them all up won't result in anything palatable, even when well-baked.

God bless Kevin Bacon's late pop

 

[Ed007Toronto]

She introduced John (and the others) to people like John Cage and other avant garde types. There'd be no White Album's and the like without her.

Actually Paul was into the avant garde stuff long before Yoko came onto the scene. John met Yoko briefly in November 1966 and only later in 1967 began seeing her regularily.

All the crazy avant garde stuff on Revolver, Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour predate her. And the White Album could certainly have been made without her (though she certainly would have been an influence at this point).

 

[BrianHawkins1]

^ Ed is right. It's a very common misperception that John was the wild, experimental one while Paul was the 'straight' one, or something, but it's just bunk.

Check out these books:

www.amazon.com/gp/product...e&n=283155

www.amazon.com/gp/product...e&n=283155

from Tim Appelo's review of "Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now"...

"If you think John Lennon was the smart, arty Beatle while Paul was an empty head twittering prettily, this book will hip you to the facts. While John sat in the suburbs getting stoned to numb the pain of his imminent divorce, bachelor Paul was feeding his head by immersion in the London avant-garde. He pioneered the Beatles' experimental stuff, though his witty song-by-song account proves that it really was a 50-50 partnership--and some of the best innovations, like the snarling 1964 feedback intro to "I Feel Fine," happened by pure accident. ... Here is the last word on the Beatles, inevitably slanted toward McCartney but generally more convincing than Lennon's own recollections."

I find the more I know about Paul and John, the more clear it becomes that Yoko Ono had little if anything to do with the Beatles' music and breakup. She was a symptom, if you will, of John's state of mind, not its cause. If you can find it on VHS (it will never - NEVER - be released on dvd due to McCartney's sanitation of the band's history), rent "Let It Be". It's an amazing document of the Beatles breaking up right in front of the cameras during the Get Back sessions. It's obvious after watching this alone that Ono's presence was not the primary reason for the end of the band. John is SO bored with the Beatles during this period that he can barely even bring himself to speak to Paul, and George seems almost equally as fed up. Hell, even ****in' Ringo almost quit around this time. Yoko, shmoko - they made their music and broke up, and she had almost nothing to do with it.

 

[Canuck 36]

So.. um... how 'bout that Mississauga?...

 

[ganjavih]

I think Paul's reputation suffered a bit from the bland poppy stuff he put out in the 70s. I also think John's murder elevated his stature and made him even more of an icon. When I listen to Beatles music though, I'm equally impressed with John and Paul's work... I don't think there's a clear winner. Both were absolutely brilliant during that period.

I find the more I know about Paul and John, the more clear it becomes that Yoko Ono had little if anything to do with the Beatles' music and breakup. She was a symptom, if you will, of John's state of mind, not its cause. If you can find it on VHS (it will never - NEVER - be released on dvd due to McCartney's sanitation of the band's history), rent "Let It Be". It's an amazing document of the Beatles breaking up right in front of the cameras during the Get Back sessions. It's obvious after watching this alone that Ono's presence was not the primary reason for the end of the band. John is SO bored with the Beatles during this period that he can barely even bring himself to speak to Paul, and George seems almost equally as fed up.

You can get unofficial DVD versions on eBay for less than $10. I agree, it's an interesting look at this dysfunctional period and well worth it. But the ultimate DVD is Anthology... everyone must have this!

Hell, even ****in' Ringo almost quit around this time.

Ringo almost quit during the White Album Sessions.

Yoko, shmoko - they made their music and broke up, and she had almost nothing to do with it.

I agree and I really don't think most people seriously believe that Yoko caused the breakup. As an aside, I have some bootlegs recorded during the White Album period that catch some candid talk from Yoko... she's talks about how the other Beatles don't like her very much but that she thinks they're finally warming up to her. Neat stuff.

 

[BrianHawkins1]

Adam:

At huge risk of inviting a barely-comprehensible, venomous shitstorm upon myself, I'd seriously like to ask:

Why do you accept a truism like this...

"Though realistically speaking (and sales, airplay, cultural ubiquity proves it), Yoko in and of herself remains an acquired-taste-at-best harder sell than John. And no amount of force-feeding will overcome that fact."

...but not precisely the same thing wrt to the NPS walkways or any number of other post-war concrete structures? In other words, why do you not just admit that many modernist works will almost certainly never appeal to anything more than a pretty small group of admirers, regardless of historical significance? In yet another bunch of words, why do you persist in unfairly accusing anyone who doesn't like the most, shall we say, difficult of modernist projects of being an uncultured idiot, despite the fact that this is obviously untrue, and that concrete modernism is a minority taste and very likely always will be?

Flame on.

 

[Ed007Toronto]

I think Paul's reputation suffered a bit from the bland poppy stuff he put out in the 70s.

Well a lot of his Beatles stuff was also poppy. It think its the Rolling Stone interview that John did after the band broke up where he said he thought Paul purposely used John's songs for experimentation. Almost trying to ruin them somehow. Of course John was a bitter man at this point.

 

[adma]

...but not precisely the same thing wrt to the NPS walkways or any number of other post-war concrete structures? In other words, why do you not just admit that many modernist works will almost certainly never appeal to anything more than a pretty small group of admirers, regardless of historical significance? In yet another bunch of words, why do you persist in unfairly accusing anyone who doesn't like the most, shall we say, difficult of modernist projects of being an uncultured idiot, despite the fact that this is obviously untrue, and that concrete modernism is a minority taste and very likely always will be?

Maybe the point is more; if you are to render this such a terminal "minority taste" ghetto, how fatally *offended* are you by that so-called "minority taste" and "pretty small group of admirers"? (Which is also why I'm prone to bringing up parallels like the "Voice Of Fire" abstract-art controversy & whatnot in circumstances like this.)

I'd rather suggest that the "fatally offended" has just as much claim to be a "minority taste"--albeit in the Sun-editorial-boardish guise of the "silent majority". (Which means, even if they're technically "larger", their inherent vulgarity diminishes them.) The rest, i.e. the real "silent majority": somewhere in the middle, not really ultra-motivated in and of themselves one way or another--which is another way of saying, "they're open". Even if they themselves might not choose modernism for their own living environments, they can accept it as part and parcel of what makes our everyday macro-environment tick. *And* they're not hostile to those who encourage us to appreciate its merits.

Think of it this way, taking Nathan Phillips Square as an example; while perhaps emanating from a cultural-class "minority" POV, Shawn Micallef's "NPS is not defective, just misunderstood" thrust would probably--potentially--(ideally?!?)--resonate *more* positively with this real-life silent majority. Because it's a positive message. And it encourages us to open our eyes, maybe as the ultimate extension of William Morris's leave-well-enough-alone principle. And my own sense is, the younger you get, the more you're inclined t/w that standpoint, perhaps because you've lived with this enough to feel sufficient nostalgia, reverie, whatever--the deck's entirely stacked in Micallef's next-generational favour.

Sure, it may *seem* otherwise if you were at any of those NPS public planning sessions last year--but the nature of the exercise was such that it stacked the deck, whether by artificially presenting NPS as a "problem" needing "resolution", or by attracting those with already overwrought vested interests in "fixing" or over-envisioning the place.

So yes, I "accepted" that truism re Yoko. But, I elaborated on it so as to deflate the relative significance of that truism.

And realistically speaking, Thomas Kinkade

has more of a popular market than Marcel Duchamp

Not that John Lennon works at a Kinkade level of wretched treacly dreck, but still.

My eternal recommendation: Free your mind. And your *** will follow.

 

[bizorky]

Maybe the point is more...

the "point" got a little lost amid the pops and crackles.

 

[adma]

Perhaps pops and crackles are good.

But then, if you're prone to statements like this

In short, I am urban, but do not need to be a fan of Yoko, hip-hop or Boston City Hall Plaza. Given the moment, to me one is irrelevant, the other is noise, and another can be redeveloped. To mix them all up won't result in anything palatable, even when well-baked.

Yoko and Mississauga in the same thread. Who'd ever have thought it possible?

maybe it's not worth arguing.

In that case, maybe some of you might find this preferrable...

 

[BrianHawkins1]

Adam:

Thanks for the thoughtful and civil - though still quite oblique - reply.

However...

"But then, if you're prone to statements like this ... maybe it's not worth arguing. In that case, maybe some of you might find this preferrable..."

...the contemptuous, condescending beat goes on, I see. One has to wonder if you are even capable of discussing this subject without barking out entirely predictable, increasingly boring, and endlessly repetitious gibes. Really man, why do you do it? What do you think you gain? Or is it some kind of involuntary compulsion? I think it's safe to assume that I speak not only for myself in suggesting that your posts would be considerably more enjoyable if they weren't frequently so hostile towards other forum members.

And Bateman's sure as hell got at least this much completely right:

"When one thinks of the real problems facing the planet and, indeed, civilization, at the end of the 20th century, the problem of whether art critics appreciate this form of art or that form of art or me seems so minuscule as to be virtually invisible."

 

[shawnmicallef]

I always thought the urinal would look better if it was lit from within, like a Kinkade painting, points of light poking out of all those holes. Maybe urinals in general.

I forgot (really) how i stumbled onto this, but www.urinal.net

 

[adma]

And Bateman's sure as hell got at least this much completely right:

"When one thinks of the real problems facing the planet and, indeed, civilization, at the end of the 20th century, the problem of whether art critics appreciate this form of art or that form of art or me seems so minuscule as to be virtually invisible."

Yes, and what did we get at the beginning of the 21st century? "The greatest work of art ever".

Stockhausen rooools, maaan. (And in a funny way, I'm inclined to agree. Still.)

 

[BrianHawkins1]

^ That's a good point, and frankly, I agree, too - though I wonder if it's for the same reasons as you or Stockhausen. Either way, I'm pretty sure it's still "too soon", as they say, for this. Points for sheer balls, anyway.

 

[adma]

As a *social* event, anyway--at least for those first few months of reverie. (And all great art is in some way social--even when "apparently" elite.)

Nearly five years later, though, even Stockhausen might agree that it's all looking more like the greatest work of *kitsch* ever--though that, in turn, might affirm its core "artistry" in some backhanded way...