Vain ramblings of a godless man...sad because he was very talented.
toldailytopic: Imagine by John Lennon: love it or hate it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Vain ramblings of a godless man...sad because he was very talented.
I enjoy the song for because it is pleasant and promotes hope and tranquility ... and it has a catchy tune.
I know what you are saying... but can you at least acknowledge that the view point "we should all just love each other" is a naive platitude?I enjoy the song for because it is pleasant and promotes hope and tranquility ... and it has a catchy tune.
Is "love your neighbor as yourself" just a naive platitude?
PureX
Well-known member
"Imagine" is not a religious song. So using a religious paradigm to judge it seems like a stupid thing to do, to me. Sort of like judging a Clint Black song by how well it plays in a European discotheque. Of course the hip, young, eurotrash crowd at the disco aren't going to appreciate it.
But the song "Imagine" seems to speak to a lot of non-religious people who believe in peace and brotherhood just the same. And any song that can express the feelings of so many folks, so well, deserves some respect.
But the song "Imagine" seems to speak to a lot of non-religious people who believe in peace and brotherhood just the same. And any song that can express the feelings of so many folks, so well, deserves some respect.
elohiym
Well-known member
elohiym
Well-known member
His talent didn't come from God? :think:
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Town Heretic said:
I did underline that it was my own personal opinion. Whatever contribution they made has mostly made the stagnated genre of pop music and the simple musical structures that go with it. But as I also said they did have some influence on bands that went on to make far more interesting things.
The end result is that when I listen to King Crimson (1969) I hear what I would still call creative and interesting music), when I hear The Beatles I hear what has become the stagnant and simplistic pop music, in particular pop rock. You might consider that a tremendous influence and you would be right I guess, I just do not see pop music as anything to celebrate.
I must disagree here. I think pop music is inherently less valuable than many other forms of music that I view are more serious (without me necessarily being a fan of all those genres).
I would liken it to comparing James Cameron to someone like Andrei Tarkovsky. Cameron movies may have been seen by infinitely more people and has to be recognized by a historian of movies. That does not put Tarkovsky and Cameron on the same level in my opinion. One makes movies as entertainment, the other made it as art. They are not mutually exclusive either.
Music is a very vague term in this context. If what is popular gets to define music, then yes that is true. I would however claim that the masters of jazz (as an example, they are not the only ones) have had a far more profound influence on creative music and what I would call quality music today. Maybe that is elitist, but so is saying that Beethoven is an infinitely more important musician than Britney Spears even if only a fraction of people listen seriously to the former compared to the latter.
It is also important to note that much of the point of my post was to underline that Beatles role in musical history is overdone to the point where it overshadows other equally important contributions. It was not my point that The Beatles made no contribution, I explicitily said otherwise. Davis and Coltrane are considered important among jazz listeners, but The Beatles are viewed as universal musical geniuses. That is what I oppose. It is overshadowing to the point where it becomes disgusting. Not to mention that the individual band members have become intolerable in their later years, that does not help.
elohiym
Well-known member
1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
Abosolutely it did but, did he give God any glory for it? The premise for this song is that faith in God is a bad thing, not a good one.
You did, but only after the overrated nonsense, which was really where I objected. Some people hate Paul Simon. Go figure.
Re: the value of music and distinctions
As someone steeped in music theory and a deep appreciation for both that genre and the far more intricate and thoughtful genre of classical music, which I still manage to enjoy slightly less, how on earth do you objectively sustain a valuation of that sort?
I think there are two scales: one is about craftsmanship and the other value. A symphony is inarguably more complex and difficult to set out than a three and a half minute pop song or a mostly extemporaneous jazz piece over established chord structures. But does the amount of work needed go to the value? Do we suggest that a haiku is of less value than a sonnet because of its complexity and length? And if not, doesn't creative genius come from the same place? And isn't the value in artistic genius found in its communication and the impact of it? And if that's so all art reduces to the individual and any discussion beyond that is just tallying degree across a range. But to what end? So maybe I'm arguing against and for both of us then...:chuckle:
Again, what distinguishes? And who? And of what importance is that distinction?
Sounds to me like you're only suggesting what you value is more valuable. Why and how so?
Since no other band or composer has had anything like the impact of the Beatles on the perception and evolution of a musical movement I don't see it.
And I didn't say you were utterly insane.
some other dude
New member
PureX
Well-known member
I agree with a lot of your observations, here, but I think you're short-changing the 'pop music' genre to some degree.
Keep in mind that 'pop' is an extremely difficult genre to be creative, in. As you pointed out, the structures and expectations of a pop song are very simple and very limited. And add to that, the huge number of entries into the field at any given time. To be consistently good at writing, arranging and performing in the pop genre is probably the single most difficult endeavor of all fields of music. It's why someone like Michael Jackson is so amazing, even if you don't necessarily like his music all that much. He found a way to be unique, danceable, life-affirming, and universally apropos in a medium that we would have every reason to think has been long since completely played out. That takes real creative vision.
I am not a fan of 'pop' music, for the most part. But every now and then someone comes along that manages to bust that very shallow, way over-used genre of music wide open, again. As I said, Michael Jackson was one. And there can be no doubt that the early Beatles were another. They were a 'pop' band back then, and they weren't pretending to be otherwise. But they did it so well, and so consistently well, that they eventually became a sort of genre unto themselves. And it was then that they were able to really begin to explore some new musical boundaries, and still get played on the air.
It was the doors they opened with albums like Sargent Pepper and Abby Road that made way for so many of the bands that you and I have come to appreciate as not being 'pop'. These other categories of more experimental music didn't even exist until the Beatles made them possible. Not on the air, anyway. And they couldn't have done so without their early excellence in the genre of radio 'pop'.
If you don't believe me, just read what virtually every musician that you respect has to say about the Beatles. You'll find almost no detractors among them.
No, because God's word generates a standard by which you can live. It forces you to reconcile your actions towards others against what you do for yourself. Lennon's platitude generates no inherent standard.
One must first define what love is before one can apply Lennon's words. One is taught what love is when one applies God's word. :thumb:
some other dude
New member
But I shall end my rant about The Beatles now :chuckle:
Allow me to continue.
The Beatles suck.
They sucked back then. They still suck.
If somebody said that in regard to nations, politics, national defense, and criminal justice it would be just a platitude. That's why God gave much more detailed descriptions as to how to handle the reality of life (dealing with bad people etc.).
As I've long suspected. Sod is Keith Richards. lain:
lain:
some other dude
New member
Drat it! I've been outed!
I'll crawl back in my coffin until dark.
I'll crawl back in my coffin until dark.