Taking Sides ; Linda McCartney or Yoko Ono

She is still hugely under-rated by the press and the music media (though interestingly not by the art establishment – she’s in Tate Bankside!).

Yoko Ono is still treated as a joke. This thread continues the tradition. Linda obviously was a lovely mother and wife and cook and an ok photographer but I don't think even McCartney would claim her as any sort of serious musician or songwriter. To place them as a pair to discuss here is absurd.

Suffice to say if I'm going to take sides, then it's going with Yoko because clearly she was the actual musician of the two.

Yoko swings it for the shades alone.

Let's face it, though, she lost her way a bit post-Lennon. If you want to know what split up the Lettrists, I'll tell you: boyfriends.

Not that the wider population liked Linda either, but you know what I mean.

I'm sure she had her smug and manipulative moments, but I can't help thinking that the public let Lennon off for the same things because he wasn't Japanese or female.

Can this mutate into a Yoko Ono: Search & Destroy thread, because I'd like to hear more of her stuff.

be glad i didn't post that as a thread. actually i wonder where yoko fits in in the Oasis mythology of the beatles?

yoko: music search: season of glass destroy: 1st Plastic Ono band LP

art search: all her and her contemporaries' graphical duchamp-influenced stuff that's on the 5th (?) floor of the tate modern destroy: the "bottoms" film

x0x0

That said i think Yoko is important for her dense lyricism. Her strength is how she makes old tropes new by a form of lirtealzation. ( ie the cuttign piece - masochism,fashion and femminsim, or the coffins)

As well her music is alot more lyrically complicated and ritualstic then she is given credit for.

Yoko's cool. I hate all those people who trot out that "she destroyed the Beatles" rubbish, it's so obvious it was the other way round and that The Beatles destroyed *her*

The argt abt Iowa is a. an argt abt the contribution to the work of the audience, and b. kind of a capitulation to the idea that something only matters if it got into the historybooks. ("No one saw it, except in Iowa...": so what! If it gave something to those that DID see it, and no one else ever hears about it, maybe that's better. Maybe getting into the historybooks is what has STRIPPED fluxus of its value...)

You misinterpreted. I guess my post was a veiled way of saying that I'm not convinced Ono's art can be termed as such. Without diving into aesthetic theory again, I think that art has value because of its rarity--in addition to whatever it is intrinsically--and I don't believe that what Ono created qualifies either way.

Have you seen that Fluxus room in Tate Modern. Loads of ace stuff covered in "Please do not touch" signs...

Art = rare = maybe intrinsically a bad thing? What I like abt books and records is that everyone can have a copy. (This is sort of true of fluxus too, provided someone in yr nabe is prepared to go up on-stage at the townhall, and have members of the audience skip bits off her clothes till she's naked.)

I wasn't having a go, Mickey: more musing aloud. I think my feelings abt this — and her — are quite contradictory: like Yoko gets away with having it both ways (tho I also think she gets in the neck both ways — no one, not even Courtney Love, has unleashed quite so much pea-brained sexist even racist bullshit from otherwise perfectly intelligent and, um, progressive ppl... which is interesting).

To say that Yoko was more of a genius than John is pretty laughable...particularly when it comes to music. You should all be ashamed of yourselves -- those who said that. By the time John married Yoko he was an acid freak. He was very content to sit back, smoke his weed and watch the admitted brilliance of her actions. So this isn't a slam on Yoko. It's more of a reality check. Also -- this isn't the first time I've heard about Yoko *influencing* Bjork and Alanis but has either artist ever even mentioned so much as even listening to her? Ever? The most you can do is point to what they're doing and say that, yes, Yoko did it like that, only earlier.

I always dug her moaning and orgasmic panting on "Kiss, Kiss, Kiss," too. If she was like that every night...oh, never mind.

Now Linda. First off, she was a great photographer and she really DID understand rock and roll... she just couldn't play it very well. If you're going to ask who was the better influence based on the outcome of their work, McCartney's solo work crushed Lennon's. And it was all because of Linda. Granted, there was a lot of misguided stuff, some schmaltzy ballads... but who can deny that it was Linda who let Paul just be himself. Sure, what made The Beatles work was the juxtaposition of John's acid (no pun) to Paul's sugar and with Linda it was all sugar, all the time... who can really complain?

Call it a draw?

As for Linda and Yoko. What the hell? Linda was a nice wife and mother, a nice photographer, she made some good veggie burgers. She used to be a groupie who turned into a farm-wife...nothing wrong. She was never a musician. She came out there with Paul because he probably felt better with his partner up there with him. Yoko has some cool songs, honestly. Her husband probably spiced them up, as he usually played lead guitar and co-produced or produced most of her really great songs. In fact, Yoko's biggest hit was produced completely by John on the day of his death.

Anyway, I would say Yoko was more influential as a musician. But Linda as a photographer, animal activist, and mother. It is absolutely a travesty to say Yoko was more talented than her husband. John was aware of many things, actually, even if he was stoned out.

She was also wonderful to interview a couple of years ago. My favorite bit of the conversation:

DW: What do you think about having become an instantly recognizable part of culture, with a lot of associations--the way somebody can refer to a "Yoko type," say?

YO: I don't know. I accept all comments, you know, and bless them all. Whatever they got out of my work, and how they're expressing it, is a blessing for me and for them, y'know? And if they have a very down opinion of my work, it's a loss for them in a way, but maybe that triggers off some inspiration for them. It's a dialogue, you know? I have to bless all aspects of the dialogue.

Yoko is definitely the winner here. Linda was a nice lady, and she had talent in her own field (photography, cooking, activism, mother), but Yoko was this clever little art-lady who inspired a genius. Linda definitely inspired Paul, but "Uncle Albert" and "My Love" and "Silly Love Songs" or "Band on the Run" just do nothing for me. His songs are commercial pop in top form- made to sell and please the commercial people. John Lennon was a man who wore his heart and soul on his sleeve, wrote honest, sometimes scathing, sometimes idealistic, sometimes "preachy" music. But you can not argue that he didn't care. He was so magnificent. I recently got his anthology and believe he was one of the greatest songwriters who ever lived. So Yoko being his wife and his little "partner" and "sidewoman", the mother of the child that showed him where his priorities rested...she is definitely the greater contribution of the two Beatles wives. Without question.

yOKO = ON tRANSMISSION THE OTHER WEEK - on the cooch with Lauren Laverne, Beth Ditto and Ana Mantronix.

have employed mark s. 'yoko = influence on JL' mrepeatedly since this thread and it always ends in argument - nice one.

Yoko contributed zilch while Linda McCartney took some fantastic rock photographs. So that's Linda then.

Plus Paul's music was as great as it had always been also after meeting Linda while Yoko must have had a very negative impact on John's songwriting, which stopped being great around the same time he met Yoko. He hardly wrote any good songs from 1968 until the mid 70s.

Be quiet. Yoko Ono>>>The Beatles

Obviously not. The Beatles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Lennon solo >>>> Yoko Ono

Everything else in the universe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Beatles

The Beatles were the most important musicians of the 20th century. In 500 years, they will be seen as just as important as Mozart and Bach.

Thank God I'll be dead by then

The Beatles were the most important musicians of the 20th century. In 500 years, they will be seen as just as important as Mozart and Bach.

-- Geir Hongro, Thursday, 31 May 2007 11:20 (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

I'm not trying to get at you Geir, but I seriously doubt this. I doubt any rock/pop artist well be remembered much once the baby boomer generation has died off.

xpost

Me too. Its bad enough people rant on about this barely entertaining Pub Rock now. Fly, meanwhile, is mental.

I doubt any rock/pop artist well be remembered much once the baby boomer generation has died off.

Back catalog titles still sell. And the baby boomers aren't the ones who are buying them.

No hip-hop will be remembered in 20 years though.

So, not only does Geir know everything about music, he also knows what the back catalogue market will be like in 500 years time

Well, obviously their albums as such will not neccessarily be remembered in 500 years. But "Yesterday" will still be remembered as maybe the most famous piece of 20th century music.

I'd put money on the most famous piece of 20thC music in 500 yrs time being one of Shostakovich or Prokofiev's symphonies.

Given the frail nature of digital media, I doubt that as much as 5% of today's music will still exist in even 100 yrs.

I might not be around to pay out/collect on my wager, though!

I'd put money on the most famous piece of 20thC music in 500 yrs time being one of Shostakovich or Prokofiev's symphonies.

The works that are remembered by the man on the street are the ones that are easier to hum. Thus, "The Four Seasons" and "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" are the most famous classical pieces ever even though "experts" may claim there are better works out there.

"Yesterday" is easy to hum, and will thus win out.

which tunes did the man on the street hum in 1507 or 1907, then, and how well-remembered are they today? The winner gets to write history, remember, and "the winner" is almost never "the man on the street"!

There's plenty of songs easier to hum than "Yesterday", lol

Also, Shostakovich and Prokofiev have some great tunes! "A Career" from Shostakovich Symphony nr13 is great! (for example...)

I don't even think "Yesterday" is that well-remembered in 2007, let alone 2507

More people probably know "Imagine"

Linda probably entered Paul's music more seamlessly than Yoko did John's.

I don't think that is slightly relevant. Fly, Plastic Ono Band, her tracks on Double Fantasy and The Paths are all fantastic. I don't think that she should have to seamlessly fit in with her husband's music.

"What do you call a pig with Wings?" . I once heard a guy from the Moody Blues say that with mock horror - like, "How could anyone say such a cruel and sexist thing?" - when you know he'd been chuckling about it for years...

The thing that always annoys me is that she always gets compared to other women artists even though the link between her and Kate Bush, Alanis, Bjork etc, seems fairly negligable. Public Image and James Chance seem like much more obvious comparisons

don't think that is slightly relevant. Fly, Plastic Ono Band, her tracks on Double Fantasy and The Paths are all fantastic. I don't think that she should have to seamlessly fit in with her husband's music

But I wasn't referring to their music at all! Besides, Linda's no musician! As a muse/inspiration, Linda had a more salutary effect on Paul than Yoko did on John; that's all I meant.

The Beatles were the most important musicians of the 20th century. In 500 years, they will be seen as just as important as Mozart and Bach.

-- Geir Hongro, Thursday, 31 May 2007 11:20 (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Yes, they will all be forgotten about by then!

Linda was probably a very nice lady who loved Paul very much (a lovely couple, in a non-sickening way), but come on. No Yoko, no B-52s. And no Death Of Samantha. And no POB/Fly/Approximately Infinite Universe etc. Which would be a bad thing.

And if she DID "break up the Beatles": Well done, getting a great band to quit at the last minute before suckage commmences, leaving behind a pristine back catalog unsullied by crap like "Free As A Bird".

Geir Hongro posts: your fertiliser of choice.

Yes, they will all be forgotten about by then!

Obviously not. Unless you think the entire European cultural heritage will be gone forever. Which is of course not the case.

Why not? You guys aren't exactly reproducing very successfully.

It kind of confirms my point upthread that everyone is still wanking on about the Beatles and Bach.

They will. Forever. Deal with it.

Oi, bossy.

If I actually believed it were the case then I could.

But revisionism happens all the time, things go radically out of fashion. What Pashmina says about the baby boomer generation definitely rings true for me. Anything supposedly innovative that the Beatles did, barely stands out from the rest of their proto indie hum-a-longs.

In 500 years, the entire European cultural heritage will be mostly influenced by the works of Ned's Atomic Dustbin.

Anything supposedly innovative that the Beatles did, barely stands out from the rest of their proto indie hum-a-longs.

There's so many other important aspects out there besides innovation.