#someone more articulate is very welcome to reply and mend my broken explainations

[eppysboys]

Could you, or anyone else that is knowledgeable in the subject, put into precise words what is wrong with the John Lennon estate and the myth and business they've built around John?

There is......so much... I've just been sitting here with your question spinning like a rotiserie chicken in my skull. It's decades and decades worth of myth building that I have an issue with, and that I think has limited John's work (in terms of outreach, timelessness, etc).

I think the best place to start would be with Rolling Stone, which is really the main structure of this particular myth around John. Here's a lovely video about it, by breathless345: McCartney, Lennon and Rolling Stone. Another very worthy read is The Beatles and Their Historians by Erin Torkelson Weber. Here's handy quote from her book!

In essence, the marketing of John has always been: John the authentic rebel, John the no-bullshit poet, John the working class hero, John the artsy peace advocate, John the enlightened one. Which, ok, sure. A little cringeworthy given he adopted these personalities like new hats and tossed them out (publicly, because he did own up to his mistakes and phases one way or another) when they weren't giving him the 'enlightenment' he was seeking... Don't get me wrong! I think John was all those things to a certain degree, but not in quite the same flavour, if that makes sense? I think after years and years of being his fan, when I think of John I see a sensitive man, endowed with great talent and beautiful warm charm, but also a great deal of trauma that had him on the run for answers and comfort his whole life. I don't see his anger in the context of 'this genius is mad at the world because of insane people and their insane objectives and tried to change the world with his soulmate', but more 'this really gifted and beautiful man is terribly confused and scared but has found comfort in this cause'. I don't think his pursuits for world peace were empty!! I just think they're framed in a way that makes him look like he was so rigidly deciated to the cause, like it was his life purpose, when he's said himself on so many occasions that he's just trying to find himself and make a world that will accept and be kind to people just like him. But that's not as cool to market to people as 'peace advocate genius man', because 'the tortured artist' is only marketable in certain ways - they have to live fast, die young, and have deep quotes to post on facebook 40 years later. No one wants a wishy washy icon, that's harder to sell.

But why is portraying John this way not a good thing? What's wrong with a bit of shorthand for marketing purposes? Well, such a big part of the marketing of John's solo work has been also partly rooted in putting Paul - his best friend, his partner, often his muse - down. Down as the fake, charming, poppy and preppy, empty, less talented one. The one who wrote granny songs and took over the beatles to make it less cool and arty. The estate (to some degree it's slightly better these days, but eh) makes out that pre-1968 was John Lennon, lost and confused and aimless. Rolling Stone pushes the manic interviews by John as John being the truthful, authentic genius ex-Beatle, though there's a wealth of instances where John has discounted those specific moments in time as how he felt in the moment, and that he feels ___ way now.

He was not 'Imagine' personified. He did care about Paul McCartney and admired him from head to heels. He did love The Beatles - not just in a 'what a great fucking band we were' sort of way but literally 'he loved those guys with all his heart, he depended on them and would defend them to the ends of the earth, he believed in them together and apart no matter what' way. He did write great  and meaningful music before 1968. He was a great musician, he loved rock n roll and he was working himself out. If you set someone up to be 'authentic poet peace icon who wrote imagine' you're going to get backlash when anyone who has internet access or a John Lennon biography handy reads about his life and realises he could be extremely un-like that. If John's image was similar to Brian Wilson's, for example, this wouldn't be such an issue. And maybe, just maybe, he would be more intriguing and endearing to a generation of people disillusioned by celebrity activism and rich people lecturing us about life's great pains.

Watch this series, specifically this episode for how John's image has been shaped and it's impact.

Also, this sucked.

Hope that any of that made any sort of sense!

Stream Walls and Bridges.