Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Given the unique circumstance of Double Fantasy – John Lennon’s first work in five years and his slaying within a few short weeks of its release – it is hard to assess the final work issued during his lifetime; a joint effort with his wife, Yoko Ono. Its initial tepid reception gave way to it serving as a place for mourners worldwide to project their grief, and has, for some, grown to status as perhaps his finest work. For others, it pointed to evidence of his irrelevancy in a world that had changed during his time away; for still others, it was a showcase for Yoko being in far more tune with the times than the former Beatle.
Singer-songwriter/performer Luther Russell (solo artist, Those Pretty Wrongs) returns to the show to make the case for the album representing peak Lennon-Ono collaboration – the culmination of their years together. He argues that it is ripe for reassessment, just as Ram was. See what you think during the first hour of our discussion.
My “Why The Beatles?” course is here:
https://tinyurl.com/3xe56k86
https://tinyurl.com/3xe56k86
A sample of Sarabeth Tucek’s work:
https://youtu.be/CTFfoc4aeYg
https://youtu.be/CTFfoc4aeYg
Luther Russell’s YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmDA0CTEdPNeCuZ_I4nAJZA
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmDA0CTEdPNeCuZ_I4nAJZA
This podcast is sponsored by BetterHelp. Go to betterhelp.com/satb and receive 10% off your first month of treatment.
Luther Russell makes an interesting but erroneous reading of Yoko Ono’s musical contributions by giving John Lennon all
the credit in giving her a public platform. Russell needs to “understand” that Yoko Ono was involved in the Fluxus movement.
He gives credit to John Cale but he needs to understand John Cage and La Monte Young before he speaks of Lou Reed and the Velvet
Underground. Yoko Ono was already an established interdisciplinary artist by 1961 and performing at the Carnegie.
Many Punk, New Wave and No Wave music in the mid 1970s and early 1980s were influenced by Fluxus not necessarily through John Lennon and Yoko Ono
but by Ono. Many Punk and New Wave musicians went to Art School before forming musical groups; Debbie Harry, David Byrne, Chris Frantz, Kim
Gordon, Glen Matlock, etc..
Pete Townsend, also an art student, credits Gustav Metzger’s, (Fluxus) for originating auto-destructive art and influencing Townsend’s on stage guitar destructions.
Russell may mean well but he is also ill informed of popular music and visual art history.
Luther Russell makes an interesting but erroneous reading of Yoko Ono’s musical contributions by giving John Lennon all
the credit in giving her a public platform. Russell needs to “understand” that Yoko Ono was involved in the Fluxus movement.
He gives credit to John Cale but he needs to understand John Cage and La Monte Young before he speaks of Lou Reed and the Velvet
Underground. Yoko Ono was already an established interdisciplinary artist by 1961 and performing at the Carnegie.
Many Punk, New Wave and No Wave music in the mid 1970s and early 1980s were influenced by Fluxus not necessarily through John Lennon and Yoko Ono
but by Ono. Many Punk and New Wave musicians went to Art School before forming musical groups; Debbie Harry, David Byrne, Chris Frantz, Kim
Gordon, Glen Matlock, etc..
Pete Townsend, also an art student, credits Gustav Metzger’s, (Fluxus) for originating auto-destructive art and influencing Townsend’s on stage guitar destructions.
Russell may mean well but he is also ill informed of popular music and visual art history.
I listened to this episode twice to try and unpack (a favourite Robert term) what Luther Russell is trying to say with statements like, “History that’s going to rewrite itself anyway.”, “You’re re-writing history that’s gonna change.” and “Artist versus the art. If you want to dive into that you can undo all of history.”
“So, what you’re saying is…” Robert responds several times trying to clarify what Luther meant. To which Luther’s response is often, “No, what I’m saying is…” as he pivots into an unrelated point, like an analogy with Cinéma Verité. “If verité was truth it wouldn’t be called verité.” he “explains” saying that the Double Fantasy “heart play” is an audio form of the film style which aims to record events as they happen. Actually, Cinéma vérité literally means “cinema of truth.”
My interpretation of what Luther argues, is that Double Fantasy is a snapshot of a blissful state of the union of John and Yoko at a single historic moment (though he agrees with Robert that Yoko’s songs are anything but blissful on side one). And, that it doesn’t matter whether it’s factual or not, because actually, for one brief moment, it was factual – to them, or maybe just John. And, it’s OK to call this an honest depiction because, “How I feel is going to change tomorrow.” And it’s art anyway. And the listener has his own reality. So just accept that it’s a blissful conversation.
However, there’s a critical flaw in Luther’s argument. As the Lost Lennon Tapes clearly show (see my book for a detailed annotated compendium of the 218 episode series at: essentialrecords.ca “ding!”) John’s Double Fantasy songs were crafted over several years, and furthermore, they often went through many iterations both lyrically and musically. The Lost Lennon Tapes give a fascinating glimpse into his songwriting technique at that time, which shows that rather than composing a song in one sitting, which Paul claims they always did for the Beatles, he would often take weeks, months, or years to complete a song. Frequently, a finished song was comprised of several pieces of previously unfinished snippets. His lyrics often evolved and changed meaning with each new demo. To argue that his songs were crafted as a “snapshot” of a particular time is, in most cases, incorrect.
My immediate assessment of Double Fantasy at the time it was released, and before everything changed, was that the production was awesome (those drums in Starting Over!), and finally somebody had pulled John’s vocals out of the echo bog (Jack Douglas), but the songs, with the exception of a few, were uninspiring. Starting Over had a great groove, but it was too derivative of the 50s to be considered a great Lennon song. It seemed an odd choice for a single – especially compared with what other artists were releasing in 1980. And the inclusion of Yoko’s songs made the album, for most people I knew, unlistenable, in its released form. It was common practice to make a tape of just John’s songs to listen to Double Fantasy.
I agree that Yoko was ahead of her time musically, and I also collected, listened to, and liked her 1970s solo albums, but Luther’s musing that Yoko might have been included as part of the Beatles had things gone differently, misses the point. As Robert and several guests have pointed out throughout SATB podcasts, what made the Beatles unique was their blend of vocals. Billy Preston did not sing on a Beatles record – neither did Eric Clapton, or any other guest. Occasionally, outsiders were allowed to add oohs and ahs, but with the exception of, “Not when he looked so fierce,” notably, there are no lead vocals by anyone other than a Beatle, on a Beatles’ song. Would they have let Yoko harmonize with them as a fifth voice? Or would she have put a lead vocal on a Beatles’ song as the solo? Seriously?
Luther also erroneously equates the length of John and Yoko’s musical collaboration with John and Paul by comparing the number of years each partner worked together. But, John did not continuously collaborate musically with Yoko from 1969 to 1980, unlike the nearly constant duration of time he spent with the Beatles and Paul.
And, the interpretation of the Yoko jam in Get Back as being Paul joining in happily with Yoko’s experimental music is not the way I see it. To me, Paul looks furious and he’s thinking, “you want noise, I’ll give you noise!”
Finally, Luther’s outrageous defense of Allen Klein, shows a glaring ignorance of the seriousness of criminality, and Beatles’ history. Had Paul just gone along with his “rock star dicks” bandmates, and agreed to “sign some shit” as Luther puts it, Klein would have found a way bankrupt the Beatles – probably by controlling all of their money and then suing them to get more, as he did with the My Sweet Lord/She’s So Fine case. But, according to Luther (and John and George at the time), being “slightly criminal” was OK. I don’t think the law sees it that way. That’s like being slightly pregnant.
At one point Robert says, “Once he gets Thin Ice out…” and after being cut off (again) by Luther, uncharacteristically never finishes that thought.
I’m almost wondering if this was a contrived debate and you’re just stringing us along. I can hardly wait to listen to part two…
Well we have to consider that Luther is not an academic or historian and is trying to illustrate his points through an artistic lens. So certainly some of his historical commentary needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and hopefully future conversations lean more to his artistic sensibilities rather than his historical “takes.” This would be my main criticism of this series; oftentimes Luther will make points that in his head are true, and then he will say things like “I don’t care what anybody says” or something like that as an exclamation point of sorts.
However, his enthusiasm and love for the Beatles is why he is a favorite guest of many, and to that end I believe that this conversation has value in that it can percolate interest for folks (like myself) that haven’t listened to Double Fantasy in a long, long time. Maybe this could have been a shorter conversation with bullet points rather than a free flowing conversation in which Luther essentially repeats himself in different ways, but I still believe this conversation has merit.
I listened to this episode twice to try and unpack (a favourite Robert term) what Luther Russell is trying to say with statements like, “History that’s going to rewrite itself anyway.”, “You’re re-writing history that’s gonna change.” and “Artist versus the art. If you want to dive into that you can undo all of history.”
“So, what you’re saying is…” Robert responds several times trying to clarify what Luther meant. To which Luther’s response is often, “No, what I’m saying is…” as he pivots into an unrelated point, like an analogy with Cinéma Verité. “If verité was truth it wouldn’t be called verité.” he “explains” saying that the Double Fantasy “heart play” is an audio form of the film style which aims to record events as they happen. Actually, Cinéma vérité literally means “cinema of truth.”
My interpretation of what Luther argues, is that Double Fantasy is a snapshot of a blissful state of the union of John and Yoko at a single historic moment (though he agrees with Robert that Yoko’s songs are anything but blissful on side one). And, that it doesn’t matter whether it’s factual or not, because actually, for one brief moment, it was factual – to them, or maybe just John. And, it’s OK to call this an honest depiction because, “How I feel is going to change tomorrow.” And it’s art anyway. And the listener has his own reality. So just accept that it’s a blissful conversation.
However, there’s a critical flaw in Luther’s argument. As the Lost Lennon Tapes clearly show (see my book for a detailed annotated compendium of the 218 episode series at: essentialrecords.ca “ding!”) John’s Double Fantasy songs were crafted over several years, and furthermore, they often went through many iterations both lyrically and musically. The Lost Lennon Tapes give a fascinating glimpse into his songwriting technique at that time, which shows that rather than composing a song in one sitting, which Paul claims they always did for the Beatles, he would often take weeks, months, or years to complete a song. Frequently, a finished song was comprised of several pieces of previously unfinished snippets. His lyrics often evolved and changed meaning with each new demo. To argue that his songs were crafted as a “snapshot” of a particular time is, in most cases, incorrect.
My immediate assessment of Double Fantasy at the time it was released, and before everything changed, was that the production was awesome (those drums in Starting Over!), and finally somebody had pulled John’s vocals out of the echo bog (Jack Douglas), but the songs, with the exception of a few, were uninspiring. Starting Over had a great groove, but it was too derivative of the 50s to be considered a great Lennon song. It seemed an odd choice for a single – especially compared with what other artists were releasing in 1980. And the inclusion of Yoko’s songs made the album, for most people I knew, unlistenable, in its released form. It was common practice to make a tape of just John’s songs to listen to Double Fantasy.
I agree that Yoko was ahead of her time musically, and I also collected, listened to, and liked her 1970s solo albums, but Luther’s musing that Yoko might have been included as part of the Beatles had things gone differently, misses the point. As Robert and several guests have pointed out throughout SATB podcasts, what made the Beatles unique was their blend of vocals. Billy Preston did not sing on a Beatles record – neither did Eric Clapton, or any other guest. Occasionally, outsiders were allowed to add oohs and ahs, but with the exception of, “Not when he looked so fierce,” notably, there are no lead vocals by anyone other than a Beatle, on a Beatles’ song. Would they have let Yoko harmonize with them as a fifth voice? Or would she have put a lead vocal on a Beatles’ song as the solo? Seriously?
Luther also erroneously equates the length of John and Yoko’s musical collaboration with John and Paul by comparing the number of years each partner worked together. But, John did not continuously collaborate musically with Yoko from 1969 to 1980, unlike the nearly constant duration of time he spent with the Beatles and Paul.
And, the interpretation of the Yoko jam in Get Back as being Paul joining in happily with Yoko’s experimental music is not the way I see it. To me, Paul looks furious and he’s thinking, “you want noise, I’ll give you noise!”
Finally, Luther’s outrageous defense of Allen Klein, shows a glaring ignorance of the seriousness of criminality, and Beatles’ history. Had Paul just gone along with his “rock star dicks” bandmates, and agreed to “sign some shit” as Luther puts it, Klein would have found a way bankrupt the Beatles – probably by controlling all of their money and then suing them to get more, as he did with the My Sweet Lord/She’s So Fine case. But, according to Luther (and John and George at the time), being “slightly criminal” was OK. I don’t think the law sees it that way. That’s like being slightly pregnant.
At one point Robert says, “Once he gets Thin Ice out…” and after being cut off (again) by Luther, uncharacteristically never finishes that thought.
I’m almost wondering if this was a contrived debate and you’re just stringing us along. I can hardly wait to listen to part two…
Well we have to consider that Luther is not an academic or historian and is trying to illustrate his points through an artistic lens. So certainly some of his historical commentary needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and hopefully future conversations lean more to his artistic sensibilities rather than his historical “takes.” This would be my main criticism of this series; oftentimes Luther will make points that in his head are true, and then he will say things like “I don’t care what anybody says” or something like that as an exclamation point of sorts.
However, his enthusiasm and love for the Beatles is why he is a favorite guest of many, and to that end I believe that this conversation has value in that it can percolate interest for folks (like myself) that haven’t listened to Double Fantasy in a long, long time. Maybe this could have been a shorter conversation with bullet points rather than a free flowing conversation in which Luther essentially repeats himself in different ways, but I still believe this conversation has merit.
Love the show Robert and thanks for chiming in and defending some of the Beatles history from a more historical informed perspective.
I do believe you are correct that john’s nasty comments did imploded the deal that ATV won. I heard Allen Klein also did that deal in with with his tough guy demeanor to the board.
And Allen Klein destroyed the NEMS deal that the Eastmans had so carefully arranged. Allen Klein’s insistence on an audit of NEMS (to look for dirt) meant the Epstein family wanted no part of it and sold elsewhere.
The beatles would have been much much better off if just these two events went down the way Paul wanted to. Instead John, fueled with rage & heroin made everything worse off.
It blows my mind that people like your guest still suggest Paul did anything wrong, especially with so much more information out today than say, 1971 (jann wenner’s reality).
I do enjoy the lookback on Double Fantasy, My love for johns songs on that album has not diminished. John’s songs are all gems.
I remember buying the “walking on thin ice” single when it came out and enjoyed it at the time, But i now see Yoko’s pitchy singing with less favor and really have trouble hearing any of her songs today.
John did master craftwork (musically) to cover up Yoko’s shortcomings, even back to the 1970 Plastic Ono album.
I do give her credit for doing so much good work on john’s legacy and releasing all of john’s other material in the 80’s & 90’s.
But her singing is just so cringy. why would anyone suggest that john was right to have her in the beatles? that’s just nuts.
Listening to Part 1, I liked a lot of what was said, but I feel that Luther is wrong about Klein/McCartney. I feel that McCartney had ample reason not to trust Klein and also to feel betrayed that the other Beatles had signed with him and the “all for one, one for all” mentality was now broken. Also I feel that in discussing this time, there was a brief reference to John’s “mental state” but not really factoring in his mental illness and his heroin addiction to what was going on at that time. That’s disappointing to me.
By the end of Part 1, I could not move on with Part 2. The adulation of “Lennon on the roof” as the big takeaway from the roof concert, not factoring it in at all about the pain of having try to get things done with a junkie and his girlfriend on the scene. I just could not take any more of the disregarding of what was going on at that time.