Question Author
I'm genuinely surprised at such a negative reassessment of the late, great John Lennon. Fair enough, it might seem rather hypocritical of him to suggest that 'All You Need Is Love' when the man was a multi milionaire, and I suppose you could argue that such sentiments might appear to be a manifestation of him and his band 'taking themselves too seriously.' Indeed, it could even appear to be vaguely preposterous that four young men should consider themselves to be in the vanguard of global political and cultural change.
But surely the cardinal point here is that the Beatles in general and John Lennon in particular spoke for their generation, and continue in their music to address very real social and political ills. It's an over simplification, I think, to suggest that Lennon was some sort of latter day saint or even the new Messiah - indeed, he repeatedly went out of his way to dispel such patently absurd hagiography, and he did it with some pretty robust good humour by all accounts. But he was certainly a man of peace (conspicuous, these days, by their absence) not to mention a quite brilliant songwriter and vocalist to boot.
It should be obvious by now that I am a lifelong admirer of John Lennon and his work; but I was interested to read a 20th anniversary commemoration in The Times wherein it suggested that Lennon's demise 'made all our hearts skip a beat,' even those who were entirely indifferent. Surely it must have touched all our lives in some way and to some extent? Surely? No?
Let's not forget that John Lennon was the driving force behind perhaps the most significant popular phenomenon of the post war era, ie The Beatles. It's easy to pick holes in anyone's character, even one as deeply flawed as that of John Lennon's, and especially when the man is dead and cannot speak for himself.