|
|
Post by nowheregirl on May 12, 2007 12:04:18 GMT 1
John has had a lot of criticism over the line "Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can". People have called him a hypocrite for writing that line while he was a millionaire living in a mansion. In my opinion, those people are missing the point of the song. He was writing about an ideal world - he wouldn't really have expected us to give away all our possessions, or stop having religion or any of the other things in the song. He was just asking us to imagine what the world would be like if we didn't have those things.
What do you think?
|
|
BudgieWudgieWeed
Dreaming of the past
[M:601]
And when the rain begins to fall, your mind turns blank.
Posts: 415
|
Post by BudgieWudgieWeed on May 12, 2007 13:40:22 GMT 1
Well, if I was the only one without possessions of my own, it would've worked out disastrous. I'd probably died. But then, if I'm starting to think about a world in which nobody has possessions wich means everybody can use what he wants to use, I think it could have worked out well if there were strickt rules (and everybody lived according to those rules) but if there weren't any? I think the cars would be parked all over the streets, people staying in houses as close possible to their work and stuff like that? To be honest, I think it would've been a bit messy. But I don't think it is about that. I think what matters most, is that people should care a little less about their possessions and care more about the world around them, about people close to them (family, friends, etc.) but also about the problems in the world. And give away a little bit of their possessions (money, clothes, stuff they don't need anymore) to help people who indeed have no possessions, people who do need stuff to survive... Well, I think my post got a little longer than I'd intended it to be, but I hope my point is clear now ... Otherwise I have to type it out all over again and I don't really feel like doing that  |
|
|
|
Post by thewalruswasmike on May 12, 2007 18:34:03 GMT 1
I saw a clip of imagine where he sings 'I wonder if we can' instead of 'you can'.
|
|
|
|
Post by nowheregirl on May 13, 2007 8:42:25 GMT 1
I saw a clip of imagine where he sings 'I wonder if we can' instead of 'you can'. I've seen it too, it was from his 'Live in New York City' concert. Maybe if he had written it that way to begin with it would have stopped people from complaining.  |
|
|
|
Post by nocturnalquadruped on Jun 22, 2007 12:00:32 GMT 1
Lennon like any good politician evolved over time, in the original version he asked us if we could imagine no posessions and he did cop a lot of criticism, I think people were taking his words too literally. He also added in subsequent live versions of Imagine the sisterhood of man, taking into account the way society had accepted equality among the sexes.
|
|
|
|
Post by lennonlegend on Feb 26, 2008 16:08:57 GMT 1
Lennon said "imagine" no possesions. He did not say do this or dont do this.
He was just imagining what it would be like, and what would result from it. And it is all true.
He knew that he could protest for peace and campaign for it, but there would never be total peace. Hence imagining. That is what makes the song that much more haunting.
He is not being a hypocrit. People pick on the last verse of Imagine, the no possessions section. They are just sore losers, because the entire song, especially the first section, is all true and pure gold.
|
|
|
|
Post by nowheregirl on Feb 26, 2008 20:47:41 GMT 1
Lennon said "imagine" no possesions. He did not say do this or dont do this. He was just imagining what it would be like, and what would result from it. And it is all true. I agree completely! As I said at the beginning of this thread, the whole point of the song is that it's called 'Imagine'. He knew we would never have a world without possessions, religion, countries, etc - he just wanted us to think about what it would be like if we didn't have any reasons for war. |
|
|
|
Post by lennonlegend on Feb 27, 2008 3:07:38 GMT 1
Yes. It is when people make it literal, especially the last verse, that they don't get it.
|
|
Lady McLennon
Magic in the air
[M:200]
Pretty amazing, eh?
Posts: 29
|
Post by Lady McLennon on Mar 1, 2008 17:50:39 GMT 1
Yeah, I get ticked when people call John a hypocrite and etc for his songs, beliefs, or whatever else. All that song is about is, er, imagining, how good it could be. 'Nuff said.  |
|
|
|
Post by onolennon on Apr 21, 2008 22:14:58 GMT 1
Exactly, John wasn't a hypocrite at all! People have to feel the lyrics, not taking them literally!
|
|
|
|
Post by lennonlegend on Apr 22, 2008 2:16:06 GMT 1
Or start deciphering the song meanings, or he'd write another 'I am the Walrus'
|
|
|
|
Post by onolennon on Apr 28, 2008 20:22:19 GMT 1
I agree, lennonlegend. Unfortunately, we have some of those 'hidden code' hunters around who take everything literally.
|
|
lovely7rita
Magic in the air
[M:232]
Love is like a flower- you've got to let it grow.
Posts: 59
|
Post by lovely7rita on Jun 1, 2008 2:28:28 GMT 1
He said it was hard giving up possessions when somebody in an interview pointed that out (ever so kindly) to him. I like to Imagine it though...  |
|
|
|
Post by onolennon on Jun 1, 2008 22:11:51 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by abonin9000 on Oct 29, 2010 6:37:47 GMT 1
I don't think that John was talking about our everyday belongings. I think he was referring to the things that we become attached to, the things that we become very possessive about. What he was trying to say, I believe, is to not become so attached to the things that you have, since they are material objects and can't take them with you to the next life.
|
|
