From "Yoko Ono and the Myth That Deserves to Die," by Lindsay Zoladz in New York Magazine. Another excerpt:
As one of the few women associated with New York’s avant-garde music scene and the “neo-Dada” Fluxus movement, Ono was by then used to being overshadowed by the more powerful and self-serious men around her. (“I wonder why men can get serious at all,” she mused in Grapefruit. “They have this delicate long thing hanging outside their bodies, which goes up and down by its own will.”)
पोस्ट्स
४२ टिप्पण्या:
I have always been drawn to the women who can arouse this kind of vitriol. The kind of hate that seems too big and billowing to be directed at just one woman, the kind that seems like a person or an entire society is vomiting out all its misogyny onto one convenient scapegoat.
Sarah Palin?
For the life of me, I've never been able to understand why there weren't more women associated with the “neo-Dada” Fluxus movement.
There are some people who have a unique ability to be widely despised--sometimes deservedly so, sometimes not. In some cases it's due to a tone-deafness (just as some can piss off everyone in the room, while others can win over any crowd) but it's often some X factor that no one can put their finger on.
I don't know about Yoko--she gets (unfairly, I think) blamed for much of the acrimony of the Beatles breakup, and of course her artistic contributions have been widely mocked (perhaps more deservedly so). But then it's not like she went around murdering people or anything like that.
"I took it for granted that they were talking about Sarah Palin."
I actually thought they were going with Hillary, and was about to sound off on the very many good reasons she is disliked that have nothing to do with misogyny (I think I despise her creep husband even more than her, as she doesn't seem to get away with as much).
Yoko Ono has always struck me as a talentless hack, just the sort who manages to be successful in the modern art world.
Whether or not she broke up the Beatles is immaterial to me. First of all, the Stones are a far better band, and second, the Beatles were bound to break up sooner or later. Two great artists like Lennon and McCartney aren't going to be able to stay together forever. Each is going to have to fulfill their own artistic vision.
Is her argument restricted to women (Love, Ono) who latch on to more famous men?
I heard an interview of Yoko one time, and it completely changed how I viewed her, I have become much more sympathetic to her. But she prefers to speak through her art and to be portrayed by others, apparently.
the Stones are a far better band, Yeah, you can tell that from their incredible artistic range, everything from garage band sound to garage band ripping off American blues.
Just admit that you prefer the limited sound of the Stones, and leave it at that? Naah!
The bitch snagged her very own Beatle. Then there were only three left over for everyone else. That should enrage any Beatle lover.
"Is her argument restricted to women (Love, Ono) who latch on to more famous men?"
You forgot Joan of Arc.
It think the woman who arouses hate is in a more glorious position if she doesn't link herself to a man. (Compare Hillary Clinton.)
In the case of Yoko Ono, however, she was getting better recognition as an artist before she got linked to John Lennon, and he was interested in her because of her art reputation. He wanted what she could give to him, a kind of post-Beatles seriousness. He helped her get more famous, and I think it was the linkage with him that got her hated.
"Grapefruit" is a wonderful book. Most amusing and lighthearted while still being serious as art.
I don't think any woman in the history of the planet experienced a more concentrated form of "an entire society... vomiting out all its misogyny onto one convenient scapegoat" than Sarah Palin in the autumn of 2008 - and ironically, most of the vitriol came from other women. Yoko got off easy by comparison.
I made a comment about Yoko in a post a few weeks back, likening her story to Hillary: they married powerful charismatic men, are seen as uncharismatic coat-tail riders.
As many people have softened their hearts to Yoko (she is a survivor) many will forgive Hillary her crimes (longevity).
It was a good comment.
I am Laslo.
Yoko may have given John Lennon a "post-Beatles seriousness," but she crushed his sense of humor and Lewis Carroll-inspired sense of whimsy. That made him a much less effective artist.
Every living human has good cause to hate their mother for unjustly expelling them from the Garden of Eden.
"Yoko may have given John Lennon a "post-Beatles seriousness," but she crushed his sense of humor and Lewis Carroll-inspired sense of whimsy. That made him a much less effective artist."
Paul was a better partner for John. It was better complementarity. It was the best. It was sublime. Hard to complain that someone else was worse. But some of what John and Yoko did together was rather nice. The sweetness of the anti-war activism was a real contrast to some of the other things that were going on. That helped us in ways we can't really know, not without seeing what would have happened without them.
War is over, if you want it/War is over now...
EDH said...
Is her argument restricted to women (Love, Ono) who latch on to more famous men?
Ann Althouse said...
You forgot Joan of Arc.
Joan of Arc latched on to Jesus. Jesus was pretty famous, if not as popular as the Beatles.
Ono must be a fan of Linda Tripp.
I don't know about Yoko--she gets (unfairly, I think) blamed for much of the acrimony of the Beatles breakup, and of course her artistic contributions have been widely mocked (perhaps more deservedly so).
Did you ever see the video with her obnoxious wailing over johnny be good? I think that mockery was well deserved.
Oh wait, it's Memphis Tennessee.
This is NSFW (language) but funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5zO6t_RZdc
@Shanna,
Yoko Ono must have been in her shrieking phase them, because the B side of John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" was Ono's Touch Me.
I remember this piece because the pinball arcade where I played as a boy had a free jukebox with this piece on it. I used to punch it in the jukebox over & over so it would play repeatedly. It would clear players out so I could get to my favorite games.
"Did you ever see the video with her obnoxious wailing over johnny be good? I think that mockery was well deserved."
Her "contributions" to the music world are their very own category of art crime.
I still think the Beatles would have broken up at the time they did even if Yoko wasn't in the picture--the ego clashes had more to do with the temperaments of Paul and John.
I'll add that the breakup was not necessily a bad thing--for all we know, the post 1969 Beatles might have been like post-1980 Rolling Stones.
"The sweetness of the anti-war activism was a real contrast to some of the other things that were going on. That helped us in ways we can't really know, not without seeing what would have happened without them."
Professor, when you say things like this it confirms my impression that your interactions with blue collar people has been limited.
@Tim in Vermont
Best. Garage. Band. Ever.
ELEVENTY!
Oh, and thanks a lot for the link to Touch Me. It is just as bad as I remembered it.
I absolutely agree that John and Paul's partnership was one of a kind. It was sublime, and each partner brought out the best in the other. Paul's work declined with Wings, although it remained recognizably "Paul." But John's solo stuff was sometimes nasty and angry and completely different than anything he did as a Beatle. Not sure if he needed Paul to keep his anger in check and/or channeled, but John Lennon was a much better songwriter when he was sublimating his dark side rather than trying to unleash it. Maybe he would have gone through this personal evolution even if he never met Yoko, but I think she deserves some of the blame.
And I know that's a different point than I was making before, but I think they're related, somehow...
"Best. Garage. Band. Ever.
ELEVENTY!"
What defines a band as a "garage band" (except actually playing in a garage)? Are the Stones really that?
I thought the Stones were pretty awesome (note the past tense--they were awesome until they were replaced by cacophonic clones in 1980). "Gimme Shelter" is still one of the best rock songs of all time.
"What defines a band as a "garage band" (except actually playing in a garage)? Are the Stones really that?"
I'm just being sarcastic. I like the Stones better than the Beatles basically because to me the Stones early stuff sounds more bluesy to me. I like the blues.
So, like Sarah Palin?
Whenever I'm tempted to feel the slightest bit of sympathy for Yoko I just pull out the White Album and listen to "Wild Honey Pie" and that takes care of that.
Although if you know the Japanese theatre tradition, her anti-tonal, hypervibraticized warbling of suspect and indeterminate pitch make more sense.
Okay, guys, I'm gonna all pin-headed & esoteric on you here, so get prepped.
Ono & Lennon made two big mistakes with the Plastic Ono Band:
1) They tried to peddle what was essentially avant-garde Classical musique concrete to a rock & roll audience that wasn't gonna have any of it. Captain Beefheart was hard enough of a sell, but entire album sides of this stuff? Gowaaan!
2) Ono's musique concrete "compositions" weren't very good by "classical" avant-garde standards. They simply were nowhere near the "classics" of the genre, such as Edgar Varese's Poeme Electronique or John Cage's Aria with Fontana Mix or Iannis Xenakis' Electro-acoustic pieces.
Okay, you may now proceed to tell me how fucked in the head I am for actually liking some of this stuff.
The Beatles were the best garage band ever back in their garage band days.
You listen to their very early recordings in German, or the raw first or second take recordings on "Meet the Beatles" and some of the other early recordings, they were just phenomenal. They tore the cover off the ball.
NOBODY was sounding like them in 1962-63. "Please, Please Me?" Are you kidding me? Ending songs on 6/9 chords? Rocking like Little Richard but with rich 3-part harmonies like on "Yes it Is."
Love me the Stones, but they didn't have the technique nor anything like the artistic breadth the Beatles had, especially together with George Martin.
Sarah Palin would have made an Excellent Vice President. I do believe -- after her performance cleaning up cozy deals in Alaska the way she did, staring down her own party's corruption -- Gov. Palin would have wrestled with Congress and restored integrity. instead it has really gone fetid under years of corruption with Pelosi and Reid.
Thanks for yoko's description of our peculiar woman-triggered mob instincts.
Beat me to it, "campy." I thought at once, "Then this person must love Sarah Palin." Except, of course, that Palin opposed the "liberal" Hive. (And by "liberal" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellator.")
The Beatles would have fallen apart anyway. Not only John and Paul were itching to do stuff on their own, but George was ready to vamoose as well. He'd had enough of being the third wheel, the younger brother no one took seriously (see "All Things Must Pass").
The person I really hate is the idiot who shot John. Who knows what would have happened with another 35 years of music? I'd bet that John and Paul would have reunited for an album, then go their separate ways again.
For a group dedicated to breaking down walls, the Beatles didn't realize then that they could separate for awhile, then come back and see if they had another album in them. Bands before them simply didn't do that. Now, everybody does.
I remember reading that one of the doctors who treated Lennon after the shooting said something to the effect of him having the body of an old man. I think John was very good for Yoko but not so the reverse. When they met John was one of the most famous men in the world. Yoko was distincty unfamous but very ambitious. She saw her chance and took it and I think it has worked out very well for her.
Ralph Hyatt said...
Two great artists like Lennon and McCartney aren't going to be able to stay together forever. Each is going to have to fulfill their own artistic vision.
But separately they kinda sucked.
tim in vermont said...
"the Stones are a far better band", Yeah, you can tell that from their incredible artistic range, everything from garage band sound to garage band ripping off American blues.
They're different. I probably listen to the Stones every day (right now in fact - Altamont version of 'Gimme Shelter'), and the Beatles every once in a while.
Given a choice of listening to only the Stones vs listening to Everything/Anything else, I'd pick the Stones.
Oh, yeah, the Yoko thing. Whatever.
"Yoko may have given John Lennon a "post-Beatles seriousness," but she crushed his sense of humor and Lewis Carroll-inspired sense of whimsy. That made him a much less effective artist."
That and the heroin.
"I wonder why men can get serious at all,' she mused in Grapefruit. 'They have this delicate long thing hanging outside their bodies, which goes up and down by its own will.'
She was pretty floppy herself in her 20's. It could only have gotten worse over the years.
LarryK said...
I don't think any woman in the history of the planet experienced a more concentrated form of "an entire society... vomiting out all its misogyny onto one convenient scapegoat" than Sarah Palin in the autumn of 2008 - and ironically, most of the vitriol came from other women. Yoko got off easy by comparison.
Some of the worst was vomited out here in this comment forum during that time period. Were you around then? One day, someone's gonna mine all that data--once the characters are ID'd.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा