John's Solo Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction: A Sympathy Vote?
This has always bothered me.....
You guys all know how much I love John. I'd throw myself under a bus to defend him to the teeth...so this isn't anything against him at all. There's just something that I've always felt was "wrong", and that's John being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a solo artist before Paul.
The reason is simple: "Everyone" knows that Paul's solo career far eclipsed John's..and I know that it had to hurt him, just as it hurt him to know/realize that Paul came into the group (at the time) a "better" musician than he was (Karen, that's what I was alluding to in my response to that interview, actually, but my thoughts about that as a whole became all jumbled and convoluted between what some others feel, what you can derive "on the surface" and the fact that till he died I believe our deeply insecure boy never felt good enough measured up against Paul. :*( All that said, as I indicated in my journal post not too long ago, John was a brilliant musician in his own right..with his own approach to music and way of expressing it/conveying it. To compare him to Paul or anyone else is to negate his individualism...and, perhaps, it was with that in mind that he was inducted into the R&R HOF--based on his merits alone. I think that could be fair to say, but was it really that simple??? Or did "other factors" play a role?? I can't help but feel that it was because of John's death and how he died that the HOF decided to be so "generous"..and that had to hurt Paul. I've no doubt Paul was a little resentful..not at John, per se, but at the fact that John's induction preceded his own induction given Paul's more successful solo career. I think I even read as much. Don't get me wrong: I think Paul was very honored to induct his best mate so it wasn't anything personal against Johnny. I just think he was also perturbed at the Hall's "inability" to acknowledge how much more successful he was as a solo artist over his boy. It's true..like it or not. I don't like it, 'cause I love my John and I wish his career had been just as prolific as Paul's..but that said, John was great on his own merits, as I said. It's just hard, given "everything", to know whether the Hall inducted John for that reason alone.
So this has always troubled me deeply and begs the question: Would John have been inducted first had it not been for his tragic death? To be honest, I don't think so. :( Let's face it, in many fan circles, John doesn't get much love compared to Paul. I know some may beg to differ, but in my experience, this is more often than not the case. Some people are more inclined to see John as the "bad" Beatle, and Paul the "good" one. Paul is the devoted family man who created lots of fluffy, catchy, melodic, and more often than not optimistic hits..the kind of stuff commercial radio eats up. John, in contrast, was the brooding, temperamental artist with highly publicized "bad boy" antics and marital woes who created, moody, introspective, less commercial soundscapes. That character assessment aside, there is also the professional aspect: John stopped producing new music after 1975 while Paul continued to have a heavy presence on the charts throughout the 70's. He also continued to tour, whereas touring was no more a priority for John than making records at the time. When you consider these factors, it's pretty much a no-brainer, imo, to induct Paul as a solo artist first before John.
Factor in the award show mentality, and it makes even more sense. Usually award ceremonies tend to honor and acknowledge that which is more popular and in the mainstream..and yes, the R&R HOF is different in that that's not necessarily true..as The Sex Pistols' induction makes clear. But that said, is it really fair to have placed John in as a solo artist first? Just what was the criteria for the HOF to have done so? If it was based on his individual merits alone, fine..and that's wonderful, but how many really believe that was it???
I have to also say that just as "bad" as inducting John before Paul, in and of itself, is inducting him because of his death or for some other reason not having to do with his accomplishments (I just read, in fact, that Jann Wenner, who is very "pro-John" and is a member of the HOF board had a hand in inducting the boy first). Well, that's not fair, either. It's a sympathy vote/bias. I have no doubt that our boy was looking down from Heaven as Paul was giving his induction speech and saying, "What the fuck?" I mean..he was never stupid..and I know as much of an honor as it is/was, he wouldn't have liked knowing that he preceded his boy in this category just because some fucker who shall remain nameless took him from us. And that, too, had to hurt Paul: the possible realization that John was only inducted first because of his death. It sounds like a great show of respect, right?..but it also has the tendency to do just the opposite...like throwing John a "bone": "Here you go, Lennon. Since you were shot dead, this is the least we could do."
UGH. D:
..and it's also no more fair, as I mentioned, to have bias factor into it. Jann Wenner is notoriously "anti-Paul" and from what I read deliberately had Paul wait five years for his own induction.
YUCKSVILLE. Nothing like favoritism. If Jann truly loved John, he would have realized that John would have loathe that.
However, possible bias aside, when I look at the overall picture, there's no denying that Paul was more successful in his solo career than John, so I have to wonder of the Hall's determination..and it just always seemed to me like John's death was a contributing factor in their decision. Again, I could be wrong..but my gut says that this is at least one of the things that may have definitely influenced the outcome.
Look..I would rather that John had been inducted into the Hall before Paul for the right reasons than for what I see as the "wrong" ones. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but given John's personal and professional history and how many people still tend to judge him unfairly, I can't be too sure that I'm not. I think going about it the "right" way and inducting Paul first as a solo artist would have been the best way to honor John--honestly. But you can't win, can you?..'cause if no one would have done anything, people would have been crying that they should. Well, yeah..they should..I agree. But do it at the "appropriate" time and for the "appropriate" reasons..because you feel the boy truly deserves it----not because you feel you have to.
Don't misunderstand me. I love my boys..and I adore my John. But fair is fair. In spite of the fact that Paul has received far more accolades than John for obvious reasons (he's lived longer and has been more successful as a solo artist), and is in Guinness for being the most successful artist in popular music in the 20th Century, I would be remiss if I felt justified that John's HOF solo induction should, therefore, come before Paul's. That's another reason why I question the motives of the Hall: Paul is honored musically "everywhere else" before John, it seems. Why not here, too?
"Just Gimme Some Truth" John once sang. Well..I just hope that the HOF and any other venue that seeks to honor John is doing so with that very idea in mind, but, could be, we'll never really know. :/
You guys all know how much I love John. I'd throw myself under a bus to defend him to the teeth...so this isn't anything against him at all. There's just something that I've always felt was "wrong", and that's John being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a solo artist before Paul.
The reason is simple: "Everyone" knows that Paul's solo career far eclipsed John's..and I know that it had to hurt him, just as it hurt him to know/realize that Paul came into the group (at the time) a "better" musician than he was (Karen, that's what I was alluding to in my response to that interview, actually, but my thoughts about that as a whole became all jumbled and convoluted between what some others feel, what you can derive "on the surface" and the fact that till he died I believe our deeply insecure boy never felt good enough measured up against Paul. :*( All that said, as I indicated in my journal post not too long ago, John was a brilliant musician in his own right..with his own approach to music and way of expressing it/conveying it. To compare him to Paul or anyone else is to negate his individualism...and, perhaps, it was with that in mind that he was inducted into the R&R HOF--based on his merits alone. I think that could be fair to say, but was it really that simple??? Or did "other factors" play a role?? I can't help but feel that it was because of John's death and how he died that the HOF decided to be so "generous"..and that had to hurt Paul. I've no doubt Paul was a little resentful..not at John, per se, but at the fact that John's induction preceded his own induction given Paul's more successful solo career. I think I even read as much. Don't get me wrong: I think Paul was very honored to induct his best mate so it wasn't anything personal against Johnny. I just think he was also perturbed at the Hall's "inability" to acknowledge how much more successful he was as a solo artist over his boy. It's true..like it or not. I don't like it, 'cause I love my John and I wish his career had been just as prolific as Paul's..but that said, John was great on his own merits, as I said. It's just hard, given "everything", to know whether the Hall inducted John for that reason alone.
So this has always troubled me deeply and begs the question: Would John have been inducted first had it not been for his tragic death? To be honest, I don't think so. :( Let's face it, in many fan circles, John doesn't get much love compared to Paul. I know some may beg to differ, but in my experience, this is more often than not the case. Some people are more inclined to see John as the "bad" Beatle, and Paul the "good" one. Paul is the devoted family man who created lots of fluffy, catchy, melodic, and more often than not optimistic hits..the kind of stuff commercial radio eats up. John, in contrast, was the brooding, temperamental artist with highly publicized "bad boy" antics and marital woes who created, moody, introspective, less commercial soundscapes. That character assessment aside, there is also the professional aspect: John stopped producing new music after 1975 while Paul continued to have a heavy presence on the charts throughout the 70's. He also continued to tour, whereas touring was no more a priority for John than making records at the time. When you consider these factors, it's pretty much a no-brainer, imo, to induct Paul as a solo artist first before John.
Factor in the award show mentality, and it makes even more sense. Usually award ceremonies tend to honor and acknowledge that which is more popular and in the mainstream..and yes, the R&R HOF is different in that that's not necessarily true..as The Sex Pistols' induction makes clear. But that said, is it really fair to have placed John in as a solo artist first? Just what was the criteria for the HOF to have done so? If it was based on his individual merits alone, fine..and that's wonderful, but how many really believe that was it???
I have to also say that just as "bad" as inducting John before Paul, in and of itself, is inducting him because of his death or for some other reason not having to do with his accomplishments (I just read, in fact, that Jann Wenner, who is very "pro-John" and is a member of the HOF board had a hand in inducting the boy first). Well, that's not fair, either. It's a sympathy vote/bias. I have no doubt that our boy was looking down from Heaven as Paul was giving his induction speech and saying, "What the fuck?" I mean..he was never stupid..and I know as much of an honor as it is/was, he wouldn't have liked knowing that he preceded his boy in this category just because some fucker who shall remain nameless took him from us. And that, too, had to hurt Paul: the possible realization that John was only inducted first because of his death. It sounds like a great show of respect, right?..but it also has the tendency to do just the opposite...like throwing John a "bone": "Here you go, Lennon. Since you were shot dead, this is the least we could do."
UGH. D:
..and it's also no more fair, as I mentioned, to have bias factor into it. Jann Wenner is notoriously "anti-Paul" and from what I read deliberately had Paul wait five years for his own induction.
YUCKSVILLE. Nothing like favoritism. If Jann truly loved John, he would have realized that John would have loathe that.
However, possible bias aside, when I look at the overall picture, there's no denying that Paul was more successful in his solo career than John, so I have to wonder of the Hall's determination..and it just always seemed to me like John's death was a contributing factor in their decision. Again, I could be wrong..but my gut says that this is at least one of the things that may have definitely influenced the outcome.
Look..I would rather that John had been inducted into the Hall before Paul for the right reasons than for what I see as the "wrong" ones. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but given John's personal and professional history and how many people still tend to judge him unfairly, I can't be too sure that I'm not. I think going about it the "right" way and inducting Paul first as a solo artist would have been the best way to honor John--honestly. But you can't win, can you?..'cause if no one would have done anything, people would have been crying that they should. Well, yeah..they should..I agree. But do it at the "appropriate" time and for the "appropriate" reasons..because you feel the boy truly deserves it----not because you feel you have to.
Don't misunderstand me. I love my boys..and I adore my John. But fair is fair. In spite of the fact that Paul has received far more accolades than John for obvious reasons (he's lived longer and has been more successful as a solo artist), and is in Guinness for being the most successful artist in popular music in the 20th Century, I would be remiss if I felt justified that John's HOF solo induction should, therefore, come before Paul's. That's another reason why I question the motives of the Hall: Paul is honored musically "everywhere else" before John, it seems. Why not here, too?
"Just Gimme Some Truth" John once sang. Well..I just hope that the HOF and any other venue that seeks to honor John is doing so with that very idea in mind, but, could be, we'll never really know. :/