Sometimes with this whole blogging-every-day thing I struggle to come up with a topic, as regular readers will no doubt have guessed from some of the posts that have been written. However, now and then real inspiration will hit me, and I’ll be off and running with a topic.
That’s what happened today, I got up and in checking Twitter was given a subject to write about.
The Huffington Post had tweeted a link to an article about Cee Lo Green getting some stick from John Lennon fans because during a performance of “Imagine” he tweaked the lyrics.
The switch seems to be fairly minor, with Green taking the original:
Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too
And changing it to:
Nothing to kill or die for, and all religion’s true
Which doesn’t really make sense although Cee Lo tried to explain it by saying “I was trying to say a world were u could believe what u wanted that’s all.” which is fair enough, and quite admirable, it would be quite nice to have a world where, as long as it wasn’t hurting someone else, all beliefs were accepted and not ridiculed. But Cee Lo’s tweak didn’t quite fit together, but never mind right? I mean, that’s the nature of music, right? Different people can put different spins on things.
Like the way that “Maggie’s Farm” in the original was about Bob Dylan lashing out at the oppresive folk music scene that wanted him to stay confined in a neat little box, while the Specials’ cover version was a shot at Margaret Thatcher.
Music is all about interpretations, and after all, Cee Lo merely changed one line to show how he thinks the world could be a better place. A place where all beliefs are respected.
But apparently this didn’t wash with Lennon fans who started having a pop at Cee Lo. You can see some of the responses here, which are pretty aggressive for fans of someone regularly associated with the hippy values of peace and love. Particularly classy is the one where Cee Lo is called “fat boy” and the writer hopes he has a heart attack. Nice.
Anyway, I tweeted about this, posting the following comment:
I’m not angry that Cee Lo changed the lyrics to Imagine, personally I think you could improve it by changing the lyrics + the tune
I hate “Imagine”, it is probably in my top 10 Least Favourite Songs of all time. I’m serious about this, I loathe it.
Part of the reason I hate it is because its not a terrible song. That may sound counterintuitive, but bear with me.
“Imagine” is, essentially, a mediocre pop song that shows its writer as being a bit pretentious. Its the kind of song you hear, may be a hit but should then slip back into relative obscurity for you to occasionally rediscover on a nostalgia radio station.
Yet, it has become regarded as some fantastic, classic song, placed in the firmament of pop music greatness. And there is only one explanation for this.
Because somebody shot John Lennon.
Lennon was 40 when he died. It was a shocking, and tragic event. He’d been an icon to a generation of people and part of one of the most influential bands of all time. As often happens when a musical legend dies one of their songs is selected for heavy rotation, most of the Beatles back catalogue was a either too upbeat or too trippy to work, and their most melancholy song, “Yesterday” wouldn’t have been appropriate as its regarded as McCartney’s baby.
So what solo work to pick? “Merry Xmas (War is over)” wouldn’t have felt right, Lennon’s anti-Paul “How Do You Sleep?” would probably cast him in too bitter a light, ditto “Jealous Guy”. Why not go with the title track to his second solo album, the passable “Imagine”?
And its at this point that the song warps. It ceases to be an average song and instead becomes regarded as some kind of anthem for the ages. Because it’ll always be tied in with John Lennon’s death, and the growing mythos around him.
It regularly performs far better than it should on “best song” lists, either by Lennon fans or people who like to think they’re deep or clever because they picked it.
“Imagine” if it were an entity would be grateful its creator had died, as it gave it a reputation it otherwise never would have had.
Anyway, this got me on to thinking about how Lennon is regarded, and how dying young can be good for your legacy in the pop culture world.
Lennon was a talented guy, there’s no denying, but his death has meant that he’s never really had to stand under much scrutiny. Dying young is easier than growing old and having to try and keep your reputation.
Proof of this is the difference between how John and Paul are viewed.
Lennon ascended to a level of pop sainthood, whereas McCartney, while still respected for his contribution has nevertheless become subject of mockery and a harsher view. Paul’s had his later work slagged off, been at the centre of a messy divorce and even had his contribution to the Beatles downplayed. How often do you hear people discuss Lennon and McCartney where they seem to infer that Lennon was the true genius and McCartney was an alright songwriter?
And Paul is locked into this, because of John’s death. He can never fight his corner or criticise John too much, because if he does it’ll look petty and bitter. Attacking a dead person never looks good, as they have no opportunity to defend themselves.
Imagine there’s no Chapman, and John’s alive today (ooh-ooh-ooh).
How would John be regarded now?
Would he still be as highly regarded if during the eighties he’d made awful synth-heavy music? Or divorced Yoko? Or gone on to utter more twatty statements like the cruel “Ringo wasn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles” line?
Nothing could have taken away the kudos and status of being one of the Beatles. They’re rightly regarded as one of the groups who changed the face of music, and its amazing how much of their stuff stands up better than a lot of the work their peers were doing. But had John lived would he still be held up to the same standard?
Look at the Rolling Stones, a band that I feel are better than the Beatles, yet Jagger has become, over the years, a parody of himself, as the tours roll on they become further removed from the iconic figures of their prime. Sure they’re rock legends, and regarded with respect and esteem, but there are also the jokes about age, the Jagger impressions and the fact Keith Richards appears to be more well known and respected for his Wolverine-like levels of resilience than his phenomenal guitar playing.
Or the Who, who sang the lyrics that give this post its title suffer the same fate. Townsend’s scandal and his and Daltrey’s transformation into grumpy old men means that they don’t have the same reputauon or legacy as their bandmate Keith Moon who’s early death has ensured he will always be remembered as a hellraising rock god.
Dying young is a tragedy, but at least then you’re crystalised in a moment of glory, beauty and vivality. Like it says in Laurence Binyon’s Ode of Remembrance:
age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
A good example of this? Look at James Dean against Marlon Brando. Brando is probably the better actor, while Dean definitely had presence he doesn’t have the mesmerising charisma that Brando shows in his best work. But Dean is the iconic image, the three films he made before his death ensure that he is regarded as a sad story, a “what if?” which allows film fans to imagine the great films he never had a chance to make and the iconic roles he didn’t get to play.
But that’s because faced with a tragic death we always skew towards the positive. Dean may have gone on to have diminishing returns and make dire movies, but his record is preserved. While Brando had to go on working, and get old. To pay the bills he had to appear in dross like The Island of Dr Moreau, and while his powerhouse appearances in The Godfather, A Streetcar Named Desire and Apocalypse Now remain brilliant they’re soured by the fact you know he also appeared in some utterly dreadful films.
An early death would transform many careers. Quentin Tarantino, if he’d died after directing three feature films would have gone out with three fantastic pieces of work (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown) and not gone on to make inferior films (Kill Bill is fun, but nowhere near the cinematic brilliance of those first 3, Death Proof was plain awful and Inglorious Basterds a missed opportunity).
Okay, this blog is starting to turn into a bit of an epic and get away from me, so I’ll put this one to bed.
Its not that the good die young, necessarily, its just that when you die young its easier not to have done anything too bad. Also, if you die young its more likely you’ll be remembered well.
Its this that leads me to disbelieve the whole Princess Di conspiracy theory. Why bump her off? I mean, sure noone anticipated the pathetic, overwrought grief displayed by much of the public, but you’d know she’d become some kind of modern day saint if she died young. No, it would’ve been in the Royals’ best interest to let her live and know that as time went by her star would fade or that she’d eventually slip up and tarnish her good name.
Because the fact is, quite often it turns out Harvey Dent got it right:
You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Any thoughts? You know what to do. TTFN
Too Many Posts 