right, and it always comes from these people who don’t want the album to begin with , so they turn its impending release into a perpetual doomsday for everyone involved, even us fans who just want new Lennon releases. Making their lists of why it shouldn’t, wouldn’t and couldn’t be released, even though it’s been confirmed it will be. And when the day of the announcement finally does get here, they won’t be around, which isn’t a bad thing
Ir's pretty likely, your prediction will be correct. But if not, ultimately the song is simply trying to equate the predicament of one oppressed group or belief--prejudice against people of color, & trying to link that with prejudice against women, that wish to live in a more emancipated society. Where it's not considered odd, weird or wrong, for women to seek higher & equal footing in the workplace, to have children without marriage, without being stigmatized etc etc. The song in no way seeks to demean black people & regardless of anyone's views on women's lib, or race. The most that can be said, is that the song uses a poor turn of phrase or wording to make it's points. Even that is debatable, when you consider all the black leaders & civil rights advocates, in touch with the Lennon's circa 1971-72, understood what they were trying to say. It's 50 years later, the world didn't collapse in 1972 when it was a single & it won't cause harm now. Beyond a few indignant people, that don't like it as art, Or a small percentage of rabid people, that believe any use of the offending word, outweighs context or anything else. John Lennon wouldn't want frightened bean counters that handled his music this way. His son knows this. Yoko knows it. Some comprise, like what has been suggested--non see through packaging, featuring a different song, as a new promo track or single, further new writings on the songs intention, in liner notes or a press release. Those type of compromises are more than fair, to assuage any record company fears of backlash. Remember--- the old saying "Any publicity is good publicity" Give John Lennon fans a bit more credit. This release isn't the Lennon's 15 best mushy love songs with strings & new added harmonies by the Carpenters & The Letterman. Just my 2 cents.
Here is idea. Anybody that’s offended(Lennon fans included) just don’t buy it or listen to it! Problem solved!
Wouldn't this be officially announced on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, too? The tracklist would make the rounds nonetheless and I fear some people would boycott this set's release just because some of them have nothing better to do than 'cancel culture'...
People who boycott this release over that song probably weren't going to buy or listen to the set anyway. These sets (especially this one, since it's considered by many to be his worst album) are targeted at existing fans, fans who probably already know of the songs existence. At most, I think this release will initially result in a lot of discussion. A lot of angry comments and videos. And then it will all be forgotten in a few weeks time. I feel the cancel culture discussion (in relation to this album) is a bit overblown. People have been "cancelled" for much worse and still bounced back. I mean, Louis C.K. just won a Grammy. Whatever happens with STiNYC probably won't have any serious consequences for the label or Lennon's legacy.
STINYC has been reissued several times over the years with no problems. It’s crazy to think people would be upset this time. The only folks who are going to be interested are already fans and know what to expect. I doubt the general public will even know about it.
I have this on now. I'm going to have to think long and hard about buying the proposed box set for this album once announced. Hopefully there are some good extras.
Me too. There are only two good songs: New York City and, on disc 2, a live version of Cold Turkey. (A third potentially good song, live again on disc 2, is Well (Please Don't Go), but it's marred by Yoko's yip yip yipping screaming in the background in the left channel.
Who cares if they boycott it! It’s their right. You only succumb to cancel culture if you pay attention to it/and if you reverse course because of it. If Sean and Yoko decided not to put out the set because of that fear than that’s a different story. If some person wants to start a boycott because they are offended than let them. I’m still going to buy my set and certainly won’t lose any sleep over it.
In regards to the allegedly offensive song, it's the line, "we make her paint her face and dance" that makes my eyes roll, much more than the use of the N word, and ruins whatever hope the song had of succeeding. No, "we" don't. Always shocking to me that Lennon could have so completely misunderstood this.
"Angela" has probably become my favorite on the album ever since I heard it on the Ultimate Mix compilation. Liked "John Sinclair" from the start. I know people find "Luck Of The Irish" ham-fisted (and the whole album, really) but it's slowly grown on me, same with "Sisters, O Sisters" and "Attica State". The studio portion of the album is underrated. I think the live album portion is irredeemable, and brings the album down. Clearly not John's best, but I wouldn't say it's worse than mediocre, and I probably will end up buying some version of the remix.
I remember the 2001 remix featured several songs that actually weren’t remixes at all? Can’t recall now whether they felt some of them couldn’t be bettered or whether they’d lost the tapes? If the latter, let’s hope they’ve now at least located all the multi tracks.
There is always a lot of hate for this album, but it has to be applauded as a concept. As with newspapers it is always going to date badly and clearly, as with a lot of challenging subjects that this did not avoid, will inevitably divide opinion. The debate about the single is always going to invite criticism, but it was never meant in a negative manner. It actually should just be seen as highlighting any minority or perceived persecuted group. I'm sure John would have hoped for a more enlightened time by now, 50 years on. I guess he would be very disappointed if he were reading current newspaper headlines. Very sad. No-one should worry about these things in context. Tough issues often require tough language. You would perhaps choose a different metaphor these days but it was not meant in a derogatory manner here. It says more about the mindset of those debating the issue than the artist. Or at least those who feel it unnecessary. Perhaps uncomfortable but not suspect. I'm quite looking forward to this release, mainly because it does get a lot of bad press. It challenged an awful lot of expectations. That is why the band and the solo Lennon are still revered. They, and he, did not follow trends, they tried to move music and thinking forward.
The 2nd set of the Madison Square Garden show sounds very promising from what we have on the Anthology. I have to think it would be part of this.
It's forever a mystery why Yoko thought it better to issue the first ("rehearsal") performance at MSG, back in 1986, when the second one was clearly better. Maybe she was higher in the mix or something....
I think you're interpreting "dance" too literally. I think Lennon meant the word in the sense of "having to do what someone else wants you to do" and not in the literal sense that they only move their bodies in time with rhythmic music because men make them. The point being that western society objectifies women, causing them to feel as though they have to play that game (of accepting objectification) in order to be accepted. I think there's a whole discussion to be had - not here though - about how free women are when they make their choices, who they make them for and why.
Seems like NOT reissuing Lennon's set is akin to banning Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" for the exact same reasons. We have a rich language which includes many offensive words and it's a powerful thing that words have power - even to this day.
