Export thread

There are a lot of arguments out there that you shouldn't buy Chris Browns music because he hit women, and he's a piece of shit for it. Fair argument, but by that standard, why not John Lennon? He admitted to hitting women, repeatedly. Why give him a pass?

Is it racism?

Is it because John Lennon is a better artist?

Is it because we are intellectually lazy and have a short memory?

Are any of those good reasons?

No, yes, yes, no.

Covar said:

No, yes, yes, no.

Click to expand...

/thread

Or that as one of the older guys here, I was 11 when Lennon died... That is not short memory, it was a long time ago when it was basically accepted. I've never seen a picture of Yoko or Cynthia all black and blue.

I didn't know John Lennon hit women until yesterday when I first saw this argument. I remember the Chris Brown incident from when it first happened. If calleja were still around I'd be interested to hear his opinion, as both a Beatles worshiper and poster child for reddit.

Ha, yeah I learned this on reddit as well. It was pretty shocking. And frankly I feel a little betrayed that I didn't hear it earlier.

Necronic said:

Ha, yeah I learned this on reddit as well. It was pretty shocking. And frankly I feel a little betrayed that I didn't hear it earlier.

Click to expand...

Ditto, but I always like Paul and George better anyway.

Imagine there's no spousal abuse. It's easy if you try.

I actually had no idea about the John Lennon hitting women thing until I read this thread.

I think the Chris Brown situation is a little more toxic since it's... still ongoing and he's actually still in a relationship with someone whom he beat pretty savagely.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I actually had no idea about the John Lennon hitting women thing until I read this thread.

I think the Chris Brown situation is a little more toxic since it's... still ongoing and he's actually still in a relationship with someone whom he beat pretty savagely.

Click to expand...

I guess that's true, but only because it's fresh. If Lennon was still around, would we feel the same?

If it happened now, charges would have been pressed, and pictures taken. John Lennon would be reviled and we would still like Paul McCartney's music.[DOUBLEPOST=1365173481][/DOUBLEPOST]http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/

I really hate hand-waving away bad shit since it was done long ago, but it was slightly a different era

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I really hate hand-waving away bad shit since it was done long ago, but it was slightly a different era

Click to expand...

This is called cognitive dissonance. I mean, I have the same dissonance, because it's hard to change one's opinion on someone like Lennon when you learn of these things so late, but I do recognize it's there.

Honestly, what Chris Brown does has no effect on whether or not I like his music. I don't like his music because his music is shitty.

I like Snoop Dogg and Eminem's music, who both have pretty much admitted to spousal abuse, but that's because they are actually talented.

Bowielee said:

Honestly, what Chris Brown does has no effect on whether or not I like his music. I don't like his music because his music is shitty.

I like Snoop Dogg and Eminem's music, who both have pretty much admitted to spousal abuse, but that's because they are actually talented.

Click to expand...

Yeah, learning to seperate a person's personal life from their professional has been something I've done (I still enjoy Tom Cruise movies) however, there's also the problem that continuing to purchase their products is almost in a way supporting their actions. There's nothing there for them to feel like they did anything wrong if the money keeps pouring in.

Willie Nelson beat several of his wives... then he dropped whiskey for pot and did not hit another woman.

Smoking weed owns

Seriously, as someone who worked in a bar for many years, I'd rather deal with a group of high people than a group of drunk people anyday.

A high man won't even be able to get mad at you. A drunk man will threaten to beat you up for imagined slights.

Bowielee said:

A drunk man will threaten to beat you up for imagined slights.

Click to expand...

A drunk man will shoot up a bar because he's just had a texting argument with his girlfriend.

Man, I hate John Lennon. And his music. And his face.

I did not know about this. But I try to separate the personal life from the work. There are too many examples to count throughout history of artists producing amazing works while being horrible, shitty people.

I mean...I get the separatin the Art from the artist, but how does that Have anythig to do with our attitudes towards Chris Brown or John Lennon? Chris Brown isn't vilified because of his music, it's because he hits women. So why don't we vilify others? Is it just because Chris Browns music also sucks? Because if so that's not separating the art and the artist.

I can only speak for me.

I don't hate Chris Brown's music because he's an asshole. I hate it because it's crap. I also hate him as a person, because he's such an asshole.

I enjoy Lennon's music, despite the fact that he's (apparently) an asshole. But now that I know he is an asshole, my personal opinion of him has dropped dramatically.

I feel like that's pretty consistent for me. Other people don't always seem to make the same choices.

This is the reason that he is vilified.

sixpackshaker said:

This is the reason that he is vilified.

Click to expand...

Her music took a shift for the worse after the incident as well.

Tress - That's another major thing about it isn't it? He isn't apologetic in the least. He did some fake apologies right after the backlash but if you've seen any of his tweets in the last year? Yeah he's 100% fine with what he did.

I guess we'll never know about how Lennon would have responded when confronted. But the character I am discovering is a pretty awful one. Physical abuse of multiple women. Emotional abuse of a child. The only hint at what it would have been like if it was public during his life is this quote from his lawyer about his attitude towards the media:

The real Lennon was not the public statements that he made. They were made because they were public statements, and he was looking to make a point. He couldn't give a shit (about lying) because to a certain extent he had contempt for the media because they bought all the crap. He was there to manipulate the media. He enjoyed doing that. He understood how to use the media. You got to give him credit for that, and you got to give her credit... They would use the media, but it was not that they believed it, but that was the image they wanted to present

Click to expand...

In all honesty this bothers me more than Chris Brown. Chris Brown is blatantly a bastard. He doesn't espouse peace or love. Lennon, beyond being abusive, was also a lie. A lie he perpetuated for his own spiritual and monetary benefit.

(some other stuff worth reading, I know it's NY Post but it's mainly quotes from Ono in a recent biography. Pretty fucked up stuff.)


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nation...1lN;jsessionid=617AEAF86426A7B3B534E9798B2224

ed: Better source

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/oct/05/music

Jeez.

Not to make light of what either of them did, but everyone has secrets. Not everyone gets caught. I wonder about the people I admire. Sometimes people's dirty laundry doesn't get aired out until after they die. Musicians, writers, artists of any kind... they tend to be a bit nuts. I'm not excusing them, but learning about the private lives of creative people can teach you to love what they create without looking to them as a role model.

I know that doesn't exactly answer the OP question... just thoughts. I suppose I also suffer from the "what can one person do" mentality. If I stop supporting someone famous who does things I don't like, will it deter them in any way? It's not the best attitude... but will it?

Its a fair point. If my life (or google history) was held to an even remotely close scrutiny I would be villified (apparently Smurf Guro isn't "socially acceptable".)

Necronic said:

Smurf Guro

Click to expand...

Almost googled that... decided I'm probably happier not knowing.

Yeah, Lennon was in a different era, but I'm pretty sure there were a lot of men back then who did not beat women and in that aspect, they were better than him.

Chris Brown is proud of what he did.

One was an asshole. The other is an asshole.

Never knew that about Lennon. Did he admit it because he was repentant? Did he do it after admitting it? If he outed himself on that because he was sorry for those actions, yes, he should get more leeway than Brown.

Chris Brown seemed to apologize because he got caught. Since he mashed Rihanna's face into a purple bubble, he's trashed a Today Show green room, and reportedly sucker-punched Frank Ocean over a parking space. Doesn't strike me as somebody who's learned a lesson.

He also threatened a valet for daring to charge him the normal rate for parking his car.

If you saw any of his tweets in the past 2yrs, you'd know he's not the least bit sorry for his actions. He's even said something along the lines of -Some women just need to be hit- when some woman was giving him shit.

Example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...riticised-attacking-Rihanna--gets-singer.html

Chris Brown is a shitty person all around. What he did to Rihanna is unacceptable and it really concerns me that so many Hollywood types seem to have forgotten what he's done. It's also alarming to me that he keeps having violent outbursts and incidents with no real consequences. He's only "sorry" when he has something to promote or sell and even then its not real remorse, its anger than anyone ever dared to hold him responsible for his actions. It bothers me that they're back together.

And the other part that I really have a problem with? I have young cousins that absolutely idolize him and THAT is scary. How can young girls be okay with this?

Squidleybits said:

And the other part that I really have a problem with? I have young cousins that absolutely idolize him and THAT is scary. How can young girls be okay with this?

Click to expand...

Have you seen the thousands of tweets from teenage girls saying -Chris Brown can beat me all he wants.- -I wish Chris Brown would beat me- etc

Gilgamesh said:

Have you seen the thousands of tweets from teenage girls saying -Chris Brown can beat me all he wants.- -I wish Chris Brown would beat me- etc

Click to expand...

Not the tweets as I'm not on Twitter, but yes, I have seen that sentiment online and it scares me.

What on earth makes a person that stupid and pathetic?

To say that they want those things from Chris Brown?

Squidleybits said:

To say that they want those things from Chris Brown?

Click to expand...

Yes. I can't understand it. There was never a time--even in the most psycho moments of adolescence--did I ever feel that way about a guy, especially not a guy that disgusting. Even if they're being hyperbolic, they sound idiotic.

I don't understand either. I would be horrified if my daughter ever said anything like that. I have a hard time seeing my younger relatives post stuff like that. I just hope that they don't really understand what they're saying.

People are getting dumber?

Cajungal said:

What on earth makes a person that stupid and pathetic?

Click to expand...

The patriarchy

God forbid anyone take any sort of personal responsibility.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

The patriarchy

Click to expand...

Not just that, it's also because people get irrational when they are in love (or think they are).

Hence your excusing John Lennon's abuse "because it was a different time"

edit: Not picking on you here, lots of other people feel the same way. They care about Lennon and there are a lot of things about him they like, so they try and rationalize away the thing that they don't.

Not that different from an abusive relationship really.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

The patriarchy

Click to expand...

Try idol worship.[DOUBLEPOST=1366802179][/DOUBLEPOST]http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/

Lennon was an entertainer, and knew how to play an audience. He had little need or reason to live according to what he presented, and so he didn't.

The only difference between Lennon and Brown is that Browns private life is in the public eye, and one can no longer be an entertainer and have reasonable expectation of privacy, and behave badly without damaging their career.

Some types of damage are expected and acceptable, but abuse is not.

If Lennon lived at this time, he would be playing the same game. "I won't do it again, blah blah blah" in order to keep his career and image as clean as possible.

Another big difference is that Ono was pretty much an obsessed stalker, and he could beat her as much as he liked and she wouldn't leave him, nor make a big deal about it. The culture at the time supported some amount of what today we would term physical spouse or child abuse.

While he and brown are both obviously spoiled children, the circumstances are different enough that we can't say with surety that had Lennon lived now he would have done the same things as he did then, or that had brown lived then he would have gotten away with it as easily as Lennon had.

Regardless, they both suck as musicians. They had a few good pieces, but Lennon had more simply because he was more prolific and he launched off a successful band. But if you take a thousand pictures, the best few might compare favorably to an Ansel Adams print, and that's what we see of the Beatles and Lennon. They produced hundreds of songs, and today we know a handful of them well. Some of the rest are ok, and the remainder are junk.

The reason Lennon was successful is not due to his music, but his marketing.

stienman said:

Regardless, they both suck as musicians. They had a few good pieces, but Lennon had more simply because he was more prolific and he launched off a successful band. But if you take a thousand pictures, the best few might compare favorably to an Ansel Adams print, and that's what we see of the Beatles and Lennon. They produced hundreds of songs, and today we know a handful of them well. Some of the rest are ok, and the remainder are junk.

The reason Lennon was successful is not due to his music, but his marketing.

Click to expand...

I'm not really a music scholar, but this is laughably wrong.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I'm not really a music scholar, but this is laughably wrong.

Click to expand...

While I don't agree with stienman, there has been music critics that have really panned Lennon in recent years.

I'd say you would have to find the extremely rare group with any decent volume of songs where most of them are awesome. IMO most music that's published is crap, and thus this is why as a whole they were so reluctant to have per-song purchases online for so long: they know that 90% of their income would go poof due to people not needing to buy the 80-90% of the songs on the albums that they don't like. You only need to pay $2-3 for what you want, as opposed to $15-20 for the whole set, most of which you don't like and won't listen to anyways.

So I'd say "this is no exception" in Lennon's case to having most of his stuff labelled as "crap" even knowing next-to-nothing about the percentage as a whole. I think it'd be a complete miracle for any artist to have even half of his/her stuff be "hits" or "good." "At least passable" is probably not a bad bar to have if you call yourself a professional, but I don't have a problem with them putting out 90-95% crap, as long as I only need to pay for the 5-10%.

Even if you are a big beatles fan (I am), I think it's fair to say that the real stars of the show were McCartney and Harrison

Emrys, you can't disagree that I hate John Lennon. I mean, I guess you can, but it doesn't really make sense.

Espy said:

Emrys, you can't disagree that I hate John Lennon. I mean, I guess you can, but it doesn't really make sense.

Click to expand...

I... I can't? But the vibes I was getting off you that day...
Oh, my bad. It was interference from the microwave.