Lennon vs Bono article

[U2girl]

John Lennon vs. Bono: The death of the celebrity activist

 

[corianderstem]

Huh, that was interesting, thanks for posting it.

I like what he says about "where are the celebrity dissidents," but I have to wonder how much of it is the time we're in now? It's easy to hold up Lennon in his era, but it's quite a different world out there now, on multiple levels.

Would Lennon have turned into a celebrity "wonk" (love that) if he were alive today? Would he even be involved in anything politically? Would he be hobnobbing with Bono? Would his musical legacy be tarnished if he started making disappointing records? (Had McCartney been killed instead of Lennon, would Lennon be the one disparaged by those who feel like they have to choose sides when choosing The Genius out of the group?)

It's easy to hold your heroes up when they die before having the chance to grow old ungracefully and inevitably disappoint you.

In other words, good article, but not sure it's a fair comparison.

 

[U2girl]

Different approaches, different times.

I do think Lennon's death gave him almost a saintly status. And Bono's overexposure gives him a disproportionate amount of hate.

 

[Utoo]

A friend just sent this to me and I was about to post it. I think it's a pretty good article save for this: What would be accomplished by Dissident Bono that Wonk Bono isn't doing? I think that there's a great emotional satisfaction in calling out the baddies and pissing them off, but I don't know if that would really be more likely to get tangible results. The one benefit might be that people may be more likely to see the issue as a true moral injustice, and then might subscribe to the celebrity's ideals and support the methods and goals. If that would be the result, then that might be a good reason for it. I don't know. I can see both sides of the coin on this one.

 

[iron yuppie]

The major argumentative problem with the article is the branding of Lennon as a "rebel." The counter-cultural movement against the war was already well-established across the country by the time that Lennon staged his bed-ins or wrote "Give Peace a Chance." He may have carried the highest-profile among the war opponents, but he was hardly original in his thinking. Massive student protests had already occurred, and by 1966 almost 60% of the population believed that the war was a mistake. Buying into that mentality hardly makes one a "rebel."

 

[corianderstem]

What would be accomplished by Dissident Bono that Wonk Bono isn't doing?

He would be seen as more "cool" by people who care about that sort of thing.

Oh, and maybe he'd spend more time on the songwriting process and less time being Wonky. Which, let's be honest, probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[JoRu]

I like what he says about "where are the celebrity dissidents," but I have to wonder how much of it is the time we're in now? It's easy to hold up Lennon in his era, but it's quite a different world out there now, on multiple levels.

I agree completely. It's a shame it works that way nowadays if you ask me, but you can't do what Lennon did back then today and expect results from it. Whether you like it or not it's better to wipe the leaders' butts (not literally of course, but you get what I mean ) if you want to get things done these days, and I think Bono gets that.

I mean, you can even see the difference on Bono himself on what has changed over the years. Today he speaks very humbly about the problems of the world while as in the '80s and the '90s he could say things like "Fuck the revolution" so that he got death threats, and all the things on Bullet The Blue Sky on Zoo TV for example (I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was quite explicit).

 

[dan_smee]

Interesting article. Can't wondering how he didn't touch on the nobility of resisting the urge to take up the rebel or the martyr's cause, only to take the un-sexy route of being a policy based activist. Policy based activists like Bono cause more real and effective social change in a week than Lennon did in his life. I am a huge John Lennon fan. A huge one. However, simplistic rhetoric and fist pumping might rally the masses, but those in power look at simplified messages and dismiss them because "they have no idea what is going on".

I worked for Peter Garrett in the Australian Parliament. He copped a lot from people given that he was one of the biggest green activists in his music days, and he was part of a Government that was progressively acting on green issues (not as quickly as his supporters would have liked). It really angered me when people called him a 'sell-out' or any other names, but it is a similar case to Bono. You bed with people you may not necessarily have bedded with before, and you put the issue first: Garrett achieved 1000x more than any other peer from his time because he realised that in power you can achieve 40% of a personal agenda. Those who followed him in those days have still achieved 0%.

 

[iron yuppie]

I mean, you can even see the difference on Bono himself on what has changed over the years. Today he speaks very humbly about the problems of the world while as in the '80s and the '90s he could say things like "Fuck the revolution" so that he got death threats, and all the things on Bullet The Blue Sky on Zoo TV for example (I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was quite explicit).

That's because fire-branding does not lead to policy change. Highly-charged language might get one attention or even into office, but policy change only comes through compromise. I would think that Bono is much more likely to bring about some form of aid to impoverished areas by working with both sides of the political spectrum in subtle terms rather than castigating exploitative companies as self-aggrandizing bastards.

 

[dan_smee]

That's because fire-branding does not lead to policy change. Highly-charged language might get one attention or even into office, but policy change only comes through compromise. I would think that Bono is much more likely to bring about some form of aid to impoverished areas by working with both sides of the political spectrum in subtle terms rather than castigating exploitative companies as self-aggrandizing bastards.

this

 

[Irvine511]

another difference is that Bono has accomplished quantifiable policy goals, Lennon did not.

quite proud of most of the reader comments.

 

[doctorwho]

He would be seen as more "cool" by people who care about that sort of thing.

Oh, and maybe he'd spend more time on the songwriting process and less time being Wonky. Which, let's be honest, probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

The thing is, what did Lennon actually accomplish? Oh sure, he had "bed ins" and all sorts of protests and media exposure. And he spouted his views and what was "wrong" with the leaders of the world. But what did it really accomplish?

Some might say they were inspired by Lennon and therefore pressured their governments to do something. But did that really do anything? The Vietnam War hardly ended any sooner because of pressure by the public.

Bono is over-exposed and hated for it. But he's silently done a lot of charity work and then openly done BIG charity work - like the creation of DATA. There are real results already, with debt relief (not loans). Also, U2 fans have set up organizations that have produced results, like the well funds. ONE is another organization producing results, as is RED.

In other words, let the writer call Bono a wonk - the difference is the results. And this is why I respect Bono's activities.

Sadly, Lennon never got the chance to move to where Bono is now. It is arguable that in the 1980's, Lennon may have very well left his rebellious side and worked WITH the system. People in their 20's and 30's want to fight the system. Being a rebel is "cool". For example, I have a young friend who is so anti-corporation he can't stand any company or governments. Trouble is, what does that get him? He just gets himself all worked up, but what has he accomplished? Awareness? Corporations can be corrupt. Governments can be corrupt. Lobbyists control big government. Gee, like we don't know this. My friend's type of rebellion, just like Lennon's of the late 60's, rarely accomplishes anything. Bono had his rebel days too - just listen to R&H. But what did that really get him? What did that get us? Even in the early 90's, U2 staged a Green Peace protest. Great. But did that truly change anything? As far as I know, the Irish Sea still has nuclear plant pollution. Was that protest well founded? Yes, monitoring radioactive waste is crucial - but nuclear power is actually a compatively clean source of energy. Would one rather have energy-inefficient, cancer-causing, mine-collapsing coal? A better way to have moved forward was not to protest the plant, but to ensure that proper precautions were implemented to ensure all safety measures are in place.

As the 90's ended, Bono's activism increased to where it is today - but it is dramatically different from the Bono of the 80's and early 90's. This Bono works the system and gets things done. And I have a feeling Lennon may have done the same in the 80's. In fact, given Yoko Ono's embrace of Bono's work, I have a feeling Lennon and Bono would very much so be together on this.

Working within the system may not be cool, but results are obtained. And ultimately, isn't that the real goal?

 

[david]

This is what I posted on another forum I frequent before the Lennon vs. Bono thread was LOCKED:

Of course Lennon was a rebel then, he was fighting out and rebelling against an establishment firmly rooted in archaic values and beliefs.

It's interesting that these 2 would be pitted against each other in some columnists dream match. It's also kind of interesting simply because as one legend's life ended (1980) another legend's career began (U2's first album came out in 1980).

People immediately dismiss Bono's causes (African aid) because the name Bono, the public image of Bono surpasses his own beliefs and causes. People always focus on his designer glasses, his wealth, the supposed self righteousnes that is percieved in the public eye.

Bono's inspiration for everything he does is admittingly his admiration for the life and career of John Lennon. I read an article about U2's tour for the Unforgettable Fire album in 1985 where he was able to meet Yoko Ono and she said to him "You are John's son" it was quite touching and obviously would have an effect on him (and for those that are cynical could obviously make a joke about Julian Lennon again getting screwed over) and everything he's tried to do.

I admire Bono because of what he champions and that he he uses his platform of being in one of the biggest bands to still use that forum to still address things that are still not made right and probably wont be made right even after Bono is long gone.

I'd rather read about Bono mouthing off again about Africa than read about things like Bono busted for drugs, Bono overdosing, Bono caught hitting the bong, Bono in another divorce, which is what happens to other "Rock Stars" and fills headlines, which he has managed to avoid during his entire 30 year career as the singer of U2.

Which of the two was more radical? Probably Lennon simply because of the time and era in which he belonged to (the stringent Nixon era) and the fact that the USA saw him more of an enemy. Is Bono a radical? I wouldn't say so. He belongs to an era of people that are simply more understanding and open minded. Some people might see him as a Bob Geldof lemming and simply just dismiss him as being Bono, the loudmouth.

So really it's just an unfair comparison of teacher and student

................


Anyway, did I make sense? I am worried simply because I've had 6 shots of Jack Daniels.

 

[Catman]

I suppose Bono could go around talking like this guy

Spoiler

YouTube - An Irishman abroad tells it like it is !!

...and while that's certainly more entertaining than reading off data and comparing pie charts, the latter might be slightly more effective in actual results.

 

[corianderstem]

doctorwho, I don't know if you quoted me just as a jumping off point for your post, or if you were actually addressing me. I thought my comment was clearly tongue-in-cheek, with the "cool" comment to be delivered with ironic finger quotes and eyeroll.

So I hope you don't think I actually think he needs to be cool. I couldn't care less about that.

 

[rivergoat]

This article does less about comparing Bono to Lennon than it points out just how unrealistically many in the media think about how to effect real change. Then again, the reason mouthy 'dissidents' are ignored in today's world is because the media can't find any solid logic to use to support them.

Hmm, somehow that sounds contradictory... oh well. I hate the media anyways - go to any major news site and you will find far more articles that belong in a gossip rag than belong in a reputable newspaper (and no, I am not including The Washington Post in the latter category - they've always been too far to the left).

goat

 

[A stor]

Sorry, to all of the John Lennon fans out there. I mean no disrespect. Love a few of his tunes myself. But, Lennon did not end the Vietnam War. My age group did. For one thing, Washington was scared shitless about the up and coming voters for the "76" presidental campaign. The second wave of baby boomers. Who saw that the hippies didn't get it quite right. Hard to change a thing when your mind is wasted on weed and LSD.

I really don't get the comparrison between Lennon and Bono. Lennon did drugs and had bed in's. Whatever that accomplished? Media attention, I suppose. Bono got things done, the way the punk generation would have. Yeah, you may have to hang out with the powers, kiss some ass if it means saving millions of lives and Bono did just that. He helped to save alot of people.

 

[doctorwho]

doctorwho, I don't know if you quoted me just as a jumping off point for your post, or if you were actually addressing me. I thought my comment was clearly tongue-in-cheek, with the "cool" comment to be delivered with ironic finger quotes and eyeroll.

So I hope you don't think I actually think he needs to be cool. I couldn't care less about that.

Oh, no - you meant it.

No, just the "cool" comment is what inspired me to write, as you are correct. Bono was seen as "cool" in the 80's because of his supposed rebellious speeches. He was very much like Lennon of the 60's then. However, neither accomplished that much with their anti-establishment rhetoric. By working within the system - something I have a feeling Lennon may have ultimately done as well (had he been given the chance) - more has been accomplished.

It's for this reason I don't understand the Bono hate. Sure, he has money. As if Lennon didn't? He may wear designer glasses. Ooh, the show-off. As if I don't see enough people with their fancy cars, clothing and homes, who then spout off how "poor" they are. Unlike most wealthy, famous people, Bono is using his money and fame to help others. Some wealthy donate and I applaud them for it. But to get true change, often a lot more than a check is needed.

 

[badu2fan]

the 60's were a completely different time then now. People protesting Vietnam war burning cities in the race riots Hippies Anti Establishment etc etc. You could not and would not want to be associated with people in authority. Lennon was driven by a much larger celebrity base then Bono.

The pressure on Beatle members was more intense especially once they broke up. If you read the article in ROlling Stone with Lennon you can tell he was depressed or paranoid in some ways due to all the pressure. Yoko brought him back and it is ashame that he was stolen so early in his life.

Bono has accomplished quite a bit with his methods. Not sure if it is just for personal or commercial benefit.

Lennon would not have wanted to benefit by or from his causes etc IMO> But that was 30 years ago. If you didn't live through it you would never understand. Big Brother was the enemy!

 

[BVS]

Not sure if it is just for personal or commercial benefit.

Lennon would not have wanted to benefit by or from his causes etc IMO>

I think people who can read people's hearts are awesome.

 

[Saracene]

I guess the writer's point is that the job of a dissident, as he sees it, is not to offer workable solutions or in fact accomplish anything - it's simply to denounce the wrongs done by those in power. I don't think it's fair though to measure someone who clearly does not aim to be a dissident in the first place against those parameters, just because both Bono and Lennon can be broadly described as "social activists".

And I think that the writer ignores the fact that the issue of global poverty is rather more murky and complicated than Vietnam War.