Yoko Ono is an accomplished artist and a notable feminist. She turned Lennon into the most outspoken male feminist of all time. She’s gotten a bum rap from the haters who unjustly blame her for destroying the Beatles. Truth is, the Beatles destroyed themselves all on their own. It was not Ono’s fault at all. The hate directed against her is for being an independent, strong woman of color who crashed the all-white boys’ club. She became a lightning rod for such racism and misogyny as exists in the rock world. It’s long past due for Ono’s reputation to be rehabilitated and for her to get the positive recognition and appreciation she’s earned.
This long-overdue statement by McCartney refutes the haters, who would claim to be Lennon’s fans while slagging off the woman he loved so passionately.
[QUOTE=the Washington Post]
In short, what Sir Paul seems to be implying in his interview is that without Ono, we wouldn’t have Lennon.
I imagine in the early years after the breakup it was just nice having someone else take the heat and the public helpfully painted a huge target for the pain and anger that I’m sure they all felt.
A little late, but still nice to hear him say it’s never been her fault
It’s kind of amazing that he even feels the need to say this. No, she didn’t break up the band. They grew apart musically and personally. It was inevitable. Or you could put it the other way: if they were really motivated to stay together, they would have done it.
I can’t think of a single good thing to say about Yoko Ono as an artist or musician (I don’t know her as a person, so I won’t comment on that), but it’s pretty OBVIOUS she wasn’t to blame for the Beatles’ split. She was a symptom of John Lennon’s alienation from the band, not the cause.
If you really read about the Beatles and Yoko Ono you’ll see how badly she got maligned for something that wasn’t her fault. And the fans ate it up. I was really surprised to read about it and rather saddened for Yoko - I don’t know, maybe she really is a jerk, but she’s been hated and reviled so badly that people who don’t know a thing about her have a knee-jerk reaction.
Surely any influence she had on John’s life (and, tangentially) the band, she had because he surrendered it to her. Surely responsibility for that was John’s, not Yoko’s.
I’ve never quite understood why people see it any other way.
Personally, if this is true, Paul looks a little douchy for taking decades to admit it. Are we supposed to think he wasn’t aware of the hate being flung at her? Or did the rest of the band, not care for her, so who cares if the truth comes out?
I get that some things only come clear in the fullness of time, but sheesh, how was this not apparent to him decades ago? I should think people are going to want to know more.
Have you been to any of her exhibits? Visited her work in any galleries? Have you any exposure, at all, to her artwork, upon which you base this dismissal of her career?
First, Paul himself took a lot of heat in many quarters for breaking up the band- John Lennon broke up the band, but never announced what he’d done. Paul, who’d been trying hard to hold the band together, was the one who finally had to tell the public that the band was through (which, inexplicably, infuriated John).
Yes, many people blamed Yoko, but as I said, many people blamed Paul, too. In King Crimson’s “Happy Family,” Paul is referred to as “Judas.”
I can’t say who was right or wrong. I can’t say if there WAS a good guy or bad guy in this whole scenario. But here’s how it looked to Paul:
“For the past few years, I’VE been the only one working to keep this band together and functioning.”
“John has gone off the deep end- he’s increasingly a lazy prima donna, and he’s acting like an even bigger prick than usual.”
“John broke up the band, and left ME holding the bag, and having to explain it to the world.”
Under the circumstances, can you see why Paul might have felt as if HE was the one being treated unfairly, and why coming to Yoko’s defense might have been rather low on his priority list?
I’ve heard lots of her music- ALL of it is unlistenable crap.
I’ve seen a small amount of her art- most of it struck me as either gimmicky or mediocre. Maybe there’s some brilliant stuff in her catalogue that I haven’t seen… but what I HAVE seen doesn’t inspire me to seek it out.
She MAY be a wonderful person. If John loved her, and they were happy together, good for them.
But I don’t have to pretend she was as talented as he was.
I don’t think any of them have ever tried much to defend the undefendable accusation against Yoko Ono. These guys were basically locked up together almost full time for years with the money and power to go their separate ways and say their separate things artistically. That is a recipe for cabin fever and possibly murder, or going their own ways.
While I’ve always thought Yoko was a decent composer, I can’t stand her singing.
I’ve got all the Beatles albums and all the immediate post Beatles albums. I’m not missing any of the music, I hope that John had a fulfilling life with his wife. Had Abbey Road and Let It Be been the last things any of them ever released, I would be thankful.
Because it’s not possible for an “independent, strong woman of color” ever to have actually done anything wrong. :rolleyes:
From what I’ve heard/read, Yoko did some things that I’d consider dickish no matter what color or gender the person who did them happened to be. Or maybe, it’s more accurate to say that it was John-and-Yoko who were collectively dickish. Which is not to say they had the monopoly on dickishness.
I don’t know whether Yoko was ultimately good or bad for John. I’m pretty sure she was at least a little bit bad for the Beatles, if that’s what matters. It’s quite probable they would have broken up without her, but maybe not as quickly or as acrimoniously.
I have. All the works that I’ve seen have been derivative, banal, badly-executed, or all three at once. Her accomplishments as an artist are on about the same level as her accomplishments as a singer.
Baloney. If she had been an eccentric artistic blonde-haired, blue-eyed WASP that showed up in John’s life around the time the Beatles happened to be growing apart, she would have still been blamed for the break-up. The woman of color thing had nothing to do with it. Now I’m not saying cheap shots haven’t been taken over the year around the fact she’s Asian, but it had nothing to do with most people laying the blame on her for the break-up.
I was thinking I had heard it from each one of the Beatles, at least once each decade. On Youtube, there is a vid of George (ca. 1970) saying that 'whatever problems caused the breakup, were there long before Yoko showed up."
I’ve read Grapefruit and heard “Don’t Worry Kyoko” and, while I don’t blame her for the Beatles breakup, I’m not what you’d call a great fan. Face it, if she hadn’t been married to John Lennon she’d be a nobody.
already during the “white album” Paul was playing bass, guitar and even drums and many of the tracks because the band was in such discord. (I’d say no pun intended but that’s not how you spell chord)
anyone who’s read a few reputable books on the Beatles will come to realize that Paul was the glue that held the band together during the later years.
thank you, this is by all means NOT the first time McCartney has come out and said something in this vain about Yoko, in fact , all the people complaining about him not saying anything earlier are the ones showing their lack of understanding on this matter.