Published on February 18, 2005 By Jamie Burnside In Entertainment

This morning I was listening to the "celebrity birthdays" bit on the radio.  Turns out that Yoko Ono (or OnoYoko for my friends in Japan) is 72 years old today.  I was a bit surprised to hear that she is already in her seventies.

Yoko is an interesting one.  Sure her music is painfully horrible, but she certainly had an interesting affect on her late husband.

If you haven't seen the documentary "John Lennon Imagine", I'd recommend it.  Watching it, one can see how Yoko Ono was able to influence her artistic-genius husband.  Yoko -the conceptual artist- was able to shape and mold her greatest work of art (John) through her styling and influence.

So the next time you wince in pain at a Yoko Ono song, think about the beautiful things she helped her husband John to create, and maybe the pain will go away.


Comments
on Feb 18, 2005
To me what she made of John Lennon was even worse than her singing. Imagine? Here's a verse from my version...

Imagine no John Lennon...
It's easy if you try.
No hell worse for us...
than Yoko's favorite guy.
Imagine all the people...
let's forget today...

Lennon was nothing more than a figment of the imagination of some talented promoters... period.
on Feb 19, 2005
"So the next time you wince in pain at a Yoko Ono song, think about the beautiful things she helped her husband John to create, and maybe the pain will go away."


I think what most people think of is what J.L. might have been WITHOUT her. I think most people see her as a detrimental effect, as opposed to positive. The whole "breaking up the Beatles" thing is debateable, but she did steer his ideals and values in such a way that he as a person changed. SOme people like the pre-Yoko John more.
on Feb 20, 2005
I think we should get out of the idea that Yoko Ono only has an identity through her husband (what is this, the 1950s?). She was an accomplished artist before they met and well-known in the art world. I saw a retrospective of her art at the Walker Art Center and it was FANTASTIC! She is not some band-breaking baracuda. She's just living her life the best way she knows how which is all the rest of us are doing.

It's so funny to me that people blame her for breaking up the Beatles and "ruining" John Lennon. He was free to do whatever he wanted - she isn't some witch who put a spell on him. John Lennon wouldn't have fallen in love with her or changed if he didn't want to.

And, Jamie, I was also surprised to hear she is 72! She looks like she's in her 50s.
on Feb 20, 2005
I don't know why I care what ParaTed2k thinks of John Lennon's music. I should just feel sorry for you, that this wealth of wonderful pop music is unavailable to you. But I feel compelled to point out that Paul McCartney, and not John Lennon, wrote "The Yellow Submarine" and "The Fool on the Hill". So using them to somehow prove that John Lennon was an idiot does a better job of making you look like one.

As for "I Am the Walrus," the lyrics are deliberate nonsense. I assume you would disqualify the nonsense poetry of Lewis Carroll from the category of genius as well.

And then there's the line from "She Loves You," which admittedly looks pretty unimpressive on the page. But let's remind ourselves that a song does not exist on the page. It is an art work of SOUND. And "She Loves You" is one of the most joyous pop songs ever to come out of a radio. It's also one of the first rock and roll songs about a relationship from the point of view of a third party. It's one of the first rock and roll songs to begin with the chorus, rather than the first verse, which is one of the reasons it's so infectious. And it's the first rock song ever to end on a sixth chord. All this, and The Beatles were still ostensibly a teenybopper band at the time they recorded it.

I just had to get that out of my system.

As for anyone who thinks that Yoko Ono's music is "painfully awful" (and I'm looking in your direction here Jamie), I would direct you to the second track on her first real album Plastic Ono Band, a song called "Why Not." To appreciate her music, you have to give up on convetional ideas of what a singer should do with her voice. Yoko Ono does not sing. She uses her voice like a saxophone: squeeling and squawking and soaring and grunting. The result, to my ears at least, and particularly on that song, is otherworldly, sexy, and funky as hell.

As for the whole "Yoko broke up the band" argument, I direct you to Nancy's post above, which proves she should also be considered a genius (it helps that she's my wife.)
on Feb 20, 2005
"Yoko Ono does not sing. She uses her voice like a saxophone: squeeling and squawking and soaring and grunting. The result, to my ears at least, and particularly on that song, is otherworldly, sexy, and funky as hell."


I think that deserves a disclaimer on the CD case, imho... or a warning label. Yeesh.

Bjork is as weird as I can tolerate...
on Feb 21, 2005
I didn't like where this conversation was going, so I edited out some of the posts.

Stay on topic , remain at least marginally positive, quit quoting Dennis Leary, or start your own thread.
on Feb 21, 2005
Oooh, deleted out of existence...

Here's another one for the delete button!

Why did Yoko Ono have to move from New York?
on Feb 21, 2005
She found a dead Beatle on the doorstep!!!

on Feb 21, 2005
Damn Jamie, you got no sense of humor today.
on Feb 21, 2005
Sorry Nancy and I caused so much controversy, Jamie. Or got sucked into in anyway. I agree that your blog, even with your sense of humor, need not support the posting of jokes about murder, even of celebrities.

I also promise never to call anyone an idiot over the internet again.

Keepin' it positive!

(But incidentally, I'm sad you deleted your email about not wanting to be invited to my dinner parties. That was freakin funny. Did Nancy tell you that Isadora was doing a Yoko Ono impression this morning? She'd do a pretty good Yoko Ono Karoake.)