MovieChat Forums > Yoko Ono Discussion > Why Yoko Ono's Music Matters.

Why Yoko Ono's Music Matters.

posted a year ago by OnanTheBarbarian (10971)
44 replies | jump to latest

Yoko Ono’s legacy is split in two. There is the reductive, racist, and sexist mythology that she broke up the Beatles, acting like a Lady Macbeth of rock music, sowing seeds of discontent that led to the implosion of the greatest rock band of the 20th century. As an addendum to this narrative is Ono the dilettante, the talentless, rich rock widow who used her connections and nepotism to buy herself a career as a musician.

The other story of Yoko Ono is far more interesting. The story is of a passionate and powerful songwriter and artist. A creative and sensitive musician who worked doggedly to bring her avant-garde aesthetic to pop music and to use her voice to advocate for the rights of women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ people. She is an underrated though hugely influential artist whose reach finds its way to a range of artists as wide as the B-52’s, Cyndi Lauper, Madonna.

https://www.popmatters.com/why-yoko-onos-music-matters

[–] [deleted] a year ago

I have no clue whether she really had anything to do with the Beatles breaking up, my guess is they were probably going to be splitting up whether she was ever on the scene or not. Most groups with lots of egos don't last.

But having heard her "music" if you dare call it that I would say it matters less than the shit on the ass of a tick latched onto a dead dog. Frankly stepping on a dead dog would probably make sounds that one could more honestly call music than any of the shit Yoko Ono created. It was really that bad, anyone with ears that has had the displeasure of listening to it can tell you that. I think Tiny Tim was light years ahead of Yoko Ono when it comes to music and he was joke.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

It's all a matter of personal taste. You're going off of cliche. It's avante garde and obviously Taylor Swift's music is more accessible to the masses.

I consider the song "Why?" a rock masterpiece.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlY4oxfma_Y

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Frank Zappa is avante garde... Yoko Ono is narcissistic shit. The song you consider a rock masterpiece has 3 of the Beatles on it, was released about the time the Beatles broke up and yet it had the popularity of a fart in an elevator. I think you need to look up what avante garde is because this wasn't, it was just repetitive screaming by a talent-less hack.

[–] AP (5262) a year ago

Exactly. Zappa was experimental and didn’t care about mainstream tastes but anyone who listens to him can tell he knew a lot about music, could play instruments and compose complex works. The style may not suit everyone’s taste but there is no denying he had talent.

I have not heard every Yoko Ono piece but every time I have seen a clip of her, she’s on a mic going “Brrroooowwwer-Rranggaaahheeee”. And these clips are several decades apart which makes me believe she has nothing else and what she has sucks. I can make “bbrrroowrrannng” noises in a mic with zero musical training.

And I don’t like Taylor Swift in case someone responds with something asinine again.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

Uh, I never liked Frank Zappa, not because I don't think he's talented. His work just doesn't appeal to me.

And you just explained why you don't like "Why?" It's not popular. Some of us don't give two shits about what you and the masses and Taylor Swift thinks is great art. You obviously measure art by what others like, what's popular. I don't. I think for myself.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Not sure why you think everyone likes Taylor Swift, is she some unrequited love of your or what? I get this mental image of some loser that never got a return letter when he mailed their fan club so now he has some major hate for her going on. Of course a loser like you appear to be would probably get all sorts of responses from any fan letter to Yoko Ono since the odds of her ever getting anything from a fan is close to zero as most people have ears and know shit when they hear it.

There is zero evidence that Ono has any talent when it comes to music. None. The closest she ever got to musical talent was fucking John Lennon. And guess what, musical talent doesn't rub off because you fucked or sucked a musician.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

I think you need to take a sedative and get some sleep. Why are you so fucking angry because I like an artist whom you don't, weirdo?

You're the one who dissed Ono because she doesn't have the "popularity". That's where Taylor Swift comes in, you fucking sheep.

Some of us don't always want violins and sweet voices. Dissonance rocks.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Oh you ignorant cunt. You just don't get it. The world isn't made up of Taylor Swift fans on one side and Yoko Ono Fans on the other. Most likely the world is made up of fans of lots of different types of music a large portion of which aren't Taylor Swift on one side and tone deaf cunts that like Yoko Ono on the other. You're probably one of a rare few, which is good because tone deaf cunts really serve no purpose beyond being gullible enough to support worthless turds like Ono.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

The purpose of rock is to wake you up, not put you to sleep. Ono does fine by me and millions of people, unlike sheep like you.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

You couldn't find a million people that enjoyed her shit if you tried. Your best option is finding the mentally ill, but I suspect it would send most of them back to their padded room to bang their heads against a wall to make the noise stop. The only sheep here is you that appears to be too stupid to understand that "Popmatters" is a joke. They publish pretty much anything someone sends them and the whole thing on Yoko Ono mattering was just something even The Onion couldn't waste space with... So it ended up on Poppmatters.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

Yes, because artists you don't like must be mentally ill. What self-serving balderdash.

YOKO ONO sold over 5,225,210 albums

https://bestsellingalbums.org/artist/6343

[–] [deleted] a year ago

And anyone with a brain knows that the only reason anyone bought those 2 albums is because John Lennon was on them. And if you looked at the way real history behind them you would know that the first and biggest selling one only took off after Lennon was killed. Had he not been murdered the odds are the first of those albums would have quickly sunk to obscurity and the second would have probably never existed as it was in large part unfinished Lennon work that would have best been left on the cutting room floor.

[–] Popcorngal (4483) a year ago

At Taylor can sing.

[–] Keelai (32817) a year ago

Howard Stern and Robin Quivers once did a serious review of Yoko's music on their show. I ended up with an appreciation of her inventive singing style because of it.

She's also a visual artist. I saw one of her interactive exhibits which was creative and positive.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

There are too many kneejerk attacks on Ono by fools who have never listened to her music.

[–] AP (5262) a year ago

Criticizing her is not sexist or racist. She wasn’t the only reason why the Beatles broke up but criticisms of her being annoying, talentless, attention-seeking and spiteful in some cases are valid. Not everyone is going to agree on that but just because she gets called out on BS, that has nothing to do with gender or race.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

I agree, it's silly to play the racist sexist card. The Beatles were worn out anyway and needed to break up.

But, there is the Dragon Lady meme:

Dragon Lady is usually a stereotype of certain East Asian and occasionally South Asian and/or Southeast Asian women as strong, deceitful, domineering, mysterious, and often sexually alluring.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Lady

[–] AP (5262) a year ago

Okay but criticism of Yoko Ono has nothing to do with the Dragon Lady trope or any other stereotypes. Obviously, racism and sexism exist and sometimes go hand in hand but this ain’t it.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

You have to remember though the 1960's were only 20 years after World War II. There was probably a lot of residual distrust of Japanese people.

[–] AP (5262) a year ago

There wasn’t. She was obnoxious. When people want to listen to John Lennon and Chuck Berry perform live but then she starts making screeching sounds in the mic that drowns them out and is awful to listen to anyway, she only has herself to blame. And did you ever hear the session the Beatles were having in the studio where they were trying to figure out a song and she started randomly going “John… John… JOHN… JOOOOHHHNNN” for no reason? Paul, George and Ringo were right to hate her.

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) a year ago

Amen. It's not racist or sexist to criticize her, and I don't like this "counterbalance" where a bunch of people seem to think the "progressive" thing is to hail her as a genius because that way they won't be racist and sexist.

We see too much of this these days: declaring art good or bad because of who made it, not because of the art.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

She didn't break up the Beatles, money matters broke up the Beatles. Yoko may have annoyed the hell out of the other Beatles but they survived her presence for years, and by the time of "Let It Be" they were all getting along tolerably. The new documentary "Let It Be" even shows the band cheerfully accompanying her as she yowls.

No, the fact is that she didn't ruin Lennon's band or career, Lennon ruined HER career. She'd been a highly respected artist before she met him, but when they decided to spend 24/7 together they'd go to his job but not hers. And she really was unfairly blamed for Lennon going off the rails in public, but the fact was he'd been an unstable mess on drugs before he met her, what she did was let the public see how crazy he really was... she didn't make him crazy.

[–] AP (5262) a year ago

He had issues but let’s face it… she wouldn’t be half as famous if she wasn’t married to a Beatle.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

That's true enough, if she'd turned Lennon down she'd be far less famous... but more respected.

But I have no idea what motivates her, I don't know if she wants to make art or be famous or piss people off or what. I just don't think that she married Lennon solely to be more famous, she stuck around during his recluse years after all.

[–] AP (5262) a year ago

I don’t know if she wanted fane but I think even if Lennon remained a recluse, she still would have been talked about and could have had opportunities to be in the spotlight. That, or she knew it wouldn’t last long, which it didn’t.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

I have no idea how much Yoko's desire for fame was a factor in her relationship with Lennon, as no sane and sober person can possibly understand what was running through their heads in those days!

But my guess is that wasn't her *only* motive. My guess is that at least part of the attraction was the pull of the Folie a Deux, where two difficult people find the one other person on Earth who won't call them on their shit. I'm getting the same vibe from Prince Harry and Meghan, BTW.

[–] AP (5262) a year ago

Pretty much every famous couple, really. There aren’t many that I would consider stable.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

No, the fact is that she didn't ruin Lennon's band or career, Lennon ruined HER career. She'd been a highly respected artist before she met him, but when they decided to spend 24/7 together they'd go to his job but not hers.

I think you hit the nail on the head. She had a career as a performance artist. It was only her relationship with Lennon which made her a rock performer.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

I thought her pre-Lennon career in avant-garde art was mainly in sculpture and painting, not performance? But I'm no expert on her career, and I've got no love for the avant-garde in any field. And as such, I have no idea if she had any hope of an ongoing career as an artist, nobody stays at the cutting edge of the avant-garde for long, and tastes in art were changing with lighting speed at that time.

But what she had, she gave up to be joined to Lennon's hip.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

No love for avante-garde? I love the experimental, and stuff which pushes the edges. Especially in art - Picasso and Van Gogh were at first rejected as too far out. Now they're mainstream. That's how art works.

Performance or conceptual art:

Yoko Ono left with no clothing

Started becoming very involved in conceptual art in the 1960s, She became a member of Fluxus, a conceptual art movement inspired by Neo-Dadaism and the avant-garde, which was known for their short and prankish performance artworks.
She has created several famous artworks, but Cut Piece (1964) and Grapefruit (1964) are ones of Ono’s most well-known artworks from the 1960s. In Cut Piece, She wanted to portray the internal suffering of people while questioning topics about gender and identity, hence the participation of the audience to cut Yoko Ono’s clothes with scissors until there was nothing left on her body. Meanwhile in Grapefruit, it was a conceptual book based on lyrics and poetic verses written in the imperative.

https://theartgorgeous.com/5-facts-yoko-ono/

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

She was certainly ahead of her time, if she was questioning ideas of gender and identity in the mid-1960s!

But no, I've never been a fan of avant-garde art, most of which strikes me as immature or attention-seeking. I'm glad it appeals to you and I bow to your greater expertise, but it's never something that's going to appeal to me. I'm not particularly proud of that, but I'm also not going to try to change this preference.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

Well, I will say that at least you're non-judgmental about others' taste in music. There are morons on this thread calling Yoko Ono and those who appreciate her mentally ill. Lol.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

I do aspire to be non-judgmental when it comes to harmless matters of personal taste, unless there's a really good joke to be made.

[–] WandererFromYs (1918) a year ago

The problem with Yokos music is that her insufferable screaming became her trademark, and that is some of the most painful stuff ever recorded. I think most people just deemed her as not worthy of John’s genius.

I agree her music isn’t as bad as you would think, but most people don’t want to look deeper after hearing the screaming.

Give this a try though, it’s Example of unconventional pop song, with some early asmr elements to it.

Kiss kiss kiss by Yoko
https://youtu.be/tfhKbfq-tVo

[–] AP (5262) a year ago

See now, that song isn’t bad. It’s a decent pop song. Maybe she didn’t pursue that sound because it was too mainstream? Being screechy and annoying made her feel more artsy? Who knows.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10971) a year ago

This was probably her most popular song, "Walking on Thin Ice":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft7-xEiwvJw

Now it's not really the kinda music I listen to. But it's a good song, no excessive shrillness.

[–] javie (2207) a year ago

She doesnt seem to have what a child needs especially a child whos had a trauma. Its apparent that she doesnt have that ability with any child, let alone a child who has gone through one of the worst traumas anyone can go through ever, let alone in their childhood.

[–] SandyR (7757) a year ago

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!"

Mozart could only dream of composing something so profound and moving!

[–] TheArgentinian (6668) a year ago

Only squares hate her.