On Lennon's Legacy

The TV film Lennon Naked was almost the very definition of a flawed work. On the plus side, Christopher Eccleston did a good impression of Lennon - in a particular, he nailed Lennon's awkward, grating, nasal twang very effectively. However, he often didn't look that much like Lennon, especially in the scenes where he was meant to be playing John Lennon in the early days of his fame. The fact is that Eccleston often looked too old to be witless wonder who led the Fab Four. Still, Lennon gets off better than the other Beatles in this production. They end up looking like extras from Life On Mars, but with a fraction of the charisma.

But in one way Lennon Naked was extremely successful - it showed what an arrogant, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, dismissive and often cruel man John Lennon was. He is an idol to many people, and I'm sure that this presentation of Lennon would have wound his many fans up the wrong way. But this film showed what fame could do to a fragile ego, and how it could make someone into a demanding emotional vampire. I dare say it wasn't entirely accurate in its presentation of Lennon, but I'd argue that it was a lot more realistic than the attempts to make Lennon into a sort of messianic figure because he wrote some decent songs decades ago.

And I'd stress that - Lennon did write some decent songs. But that's it. And lots of people write decent songs; I'd argue that many artists have written better songs that Lennon (including two of his fellow Beatles). Lennon appears to have become one of those celebrities who is venerated by many owing to self-promotion and an untimely death. Unfortunately, neither of those attributes is actually a guarantee of a meaningful legacy.

In the cold light of day, Lennon's legacy is two-fold. He was part of a band who, perhaps more than any other musical combo in the history of rock 'n' roll, have become a brand. Sure, go ahead and deceive yourself about how the Beatles were hippies, or counter-culture icons. But when Beatles Rock Band backs up the re-release of the Beatles back catalogue, it is difficult to see the Fab Four as anything other than an exercise in money-making. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying making money is a bad thing; instead, I'm arguing that the Beatles perhaps aren't the hippy icons they are made out to be.

And the second part of the Lennon legacy - his attempts to create peace by not getting out of bed - didn't end the Vietnam war, or bring general peace on Earth. Rather, the Lennon protests allowed for a rock star to become a serious political commentator - and, often, an armchair revolutionary - for no other reason than having sold a few thousand records. Lennon was a pioneer - he was a pioneer for Bono, and for Sting, and for that warbling cunt out of Coldplay. He was a pioneer for any rock star who thinks that they are freedom fighters when all they are actually doing is promoting themselves and, intentionally or otherwise, getting even more attention for their musical careers. Lennon's political activities didn't result in peace; rather, they laid the foundations for the frankly insane world where Ginger Spice can become a UN ambassador - a world not only turned upside down, but where political engagement has been so debased that it is nearly meaningless.

So by all means be a fan of the Beatles, and an admirer of some of Lennon's work. But watch something like Lennon Naked with an open mind, and understand how Lennon was not the peerless, pure icon he is sometimes made out to be. Understand that Lennon was selfish, flawed, arrogant and insecure. And understand that he was just a human being. Like the rest of us.

Paul McCartney

There’s something about Paul McCartney that winds me up. It isn’t his songs. Yes, he wrote The Frog Chorus. But great musicians are allowed some lapses in taste and judgement. And having written songs like Live and Let Die, Hey Jude, The Long and Winding Road and Maybe I’m Amazed more than makes up for a dodgy moment in the 1980’s – which, less face it, is when most artists chose to leave taste to one side. Paul McCartney is a great song writer – you won’t find me arguing that.

What does bother me slightly is the way he constantly tries to make himself into a more revolutionary figure than he actually is. This article is a great example of this tendency. Paul McCartney – the author of Eleanor Rigby, Lady Madonna and Yesterday, is claiming that he was the one who made the Beatles political. This may be true – it would certainly be difficult to disprove. But everyone knows that, regardless of who made the Beatles political, it was John Lennon who was the true counter-culture icon in the Beatles.

And it doesn’t stop there. I read an article recently in The Guardian’s Guide that was basically about how avant-garde Sir Paul is. Except, the article showed Paul McCartney was not avant-garde, but was close to those who are. Like John Lennon. And the DJ who turned one of tracks into a dance anthem. And his wife when she was taking random photos. Paul McCartney comes across as someone who is desperate to be cool, and in doing so just shows how desperate he is to be seen in the same light as John Lennon.

Ultimately, Paul should let his back catalogue shut up and do the talking. He is a great song writer – better, I’d argue, than Lennon. But his puerile attempts to position himself as some sort of avant-garde icon and political revolutionary is just not going to work.