Log In
Register
9.36pm
18 December 2012
Offline
If John was here today I think he would end up being a very controversial figure – certainly not as loved as he is now. I could see him interacting with fans a lot on twitter, but it probably wouldn’t be good for him because he’d constantly be putting his foot in his mouth.
3.49pm
28 May 2014
Offline bewareofchairs said
If John was here today I think he would end up being a very controversial figure – certainly not as loved as he is now. I could see him interacting with fans a lot on twitter, but it probably wouldn’t be good for him because he’d constantly be putting his foot in his mouth.
I do think that he would be putting his foot in his mouth but not on twitter. He would do it on interviews. I don’t think he would get out much. He would be a recluse in his home and I think he would not like modern people at all.
By hook or by crook, I'll be last in this book.
12.27pm
8 November 2012
Offline I don’t know, by the time Twitter came around, John would have been older and (hopefully) wiser. He might have been provocative and thought-provoking without being incendiary.
parlance
The following people thank parlance for this post:
thisbirdhasflown, Mr. Kite1.39pm
8 April 2014
Offline I don’t think John would be very active on social media. Perhaps, every so often he would post something about anti-war, etc.
I also suspect he wouldn’t be touring.
1.44pm
1 November 2013
Offline
I think he would like youtube
2.18pm
25 August 2012
Offline He’d still be sick and tired of hearing things ’bout uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics. 
The following people thank Duke_of_Kirkcaldy for this post:
Lennonista3.29am
24 April 2013
Offline bewareofchairs said
If John was here today I think he would end up being a very controversial figure – certainly not as loved as he is now. I could see him interacting with fans a lot on twitter, but it probably wouldn’t be good for him because he’d constantly be putting his foot in his mouth.
On the contrary, he’d be even more loved. People with his wit, charm, and insight are not exactly a dime a dozen. Today’s celebrity scene is seriously lacking in genuine and clever people like John. “Putting his foot in his mouth” would be half the fun. There are too many unoriginal pat answers out there already… it’s always good to add some spice to the pot. John’s wtf attitude would be a very welcome breath of fresh air… just not to everyone’s liking… which would just make him all the greater.
The cool thing about these “what would John be doing today” discussions is that the possibilities are endless. Yoko herself said he would’ve loved Twitter and I tend to agree because it really suits his personality. Who cares if he got incendiary once in a while? (though I tend to believe he would’ve probably continued to mellow as far as that’s concerned)… it would’ve been fun. I also think he may have had a radio show or podcast where he’d talk with fans and play his favorite “moldy oldies” and also some new weird stuff. He probably would’ve gotten into making videos… all kinds of cool new ways to express himself.
Really, people… he would have been uber-cool! Some of you may not want to admit it, but there’s no doubt in my mind. [cue the music:] “What the world needs now is John, sweet John…”
5.00am
8 November 2012
Offline Lennonista said
Who cares if he got incendiary once in a while?
There’s provocative and there’s foolish. Given more time, I imagine John maturing beyond the need to get a rise out of people just for the sake of it.
parlance
6.51am
24 April 2013
Offline But John was so much more than that. Most of his most “incendiary” comments were not made simply for the sake of pissing people off. (Though some were.) The Jesus thing was his most controversial remark ever and he was just being intellectually honest about his thoughts, not trying to make some hypocritical Bible thumper apoplectic.
I just feel that too many people these days are too critical of John’s public persona. So he could be obnoxious… so what? The world didn’t blow up or anything because of something he said.
1.18am
18 December 2012
Offline 
Lennonista said
bewareofchairs said
If John was here today I think he would end up being a very controversial figure – certainly not as loved as he is now. I could see him interacting with fans a lot on twitter, but it probably wouldn’t be good for him because he’d constantly be putting his foot in his mouth.On the contrary, he’d be even more loved. People with his wit, charm, and insight are not exactly a dime a dozen. Today’s celebrity scene is seriously lacking in genuine and clever people like John. “Putting his foot in his mouth” would be half the fun. There are too many unoriginal pat answers out there already… it’s always good to add some spice to the pot. John’s wtf attitude would be a very welcome breath of fresh air… just not to everyone’s liking… which would just make him all the greater.
The cool thing about these “what would John be doing today” discussions is that the possibilities are endless. Yoko herself said he would’ve loved Twitter and I tend to agree because it really suits his personality. Who cares if he got incendiary once in a while? (though I tend to believe he would’ve probably continued to mellow as far as that’s concerned)… it would’ve been fun. I also think he may have had a radio show or podcast where he’d talk with fans and play his favorite “moldy oldies” and also some new weird stuff. He probably would’ve gotten into making videos… all kinds of cool new ways to express himself.
Really, people… he would have been uber-cool! Some of you may not want to admit it, but there’s no doubt in my mind. [cue the music:] “What the world needs now is John, sweet John…”
I think it would suit him too. Not that he’d necessarily be on it all the time, but I think he would enjoy being directly connected to people. I don’t mean to single him out or anything. Celebrities make regrettable comments on twitter all the time, so I just think that with his sense of humour and impulsive personality, it’s likely it would happen to John a few times. And he’d probably make some human mistakes before then, as the other Beatles did.
I’d like to think he would’ve mellowed though. Basically, I feel like John would’ve had a similar image to George in the media. They were both more cynical than Paul and Ringo, more reclusive, less diplomatic and very honest about their views on the world and the music industry, which can lead to being more criticised and being called a nipple by the odd Liam Gallagher. 
I love the idea of John having a podcast!
The following people thank bewareofchairs for this post:
parlance4.00am
24 April 2013
Offline bewareofchairs said
I think it would suit him too. Not that he’d necessarily be on it all the time, but I think he would enjoy being directly connected to people. I don’t mean to single him out or anything. Celebrities make regrettable comments on twitter all the time, so I just think that with his sense of humour and impulsive personality, it’s likely it would happen to John a few times.
I hear you, thanks for for expounding on your original thought. S’pose what I’m saying is that I don’t find that a bad thing. (And it looks like neither do you.) We need our ****-stirrers, especially when they’re really clever and speaking the truth.
The following people thank Lennonista for this post:
Bulldog, bewareofchairs5.08pm
23 July 2014
Offline 
To be honest, if John was alive, I think the Beatles would have reunited sometime in the mid 1980’s. By this point, tensions had cooled down between John and Paul, even Yoko had said so. Yes, there would have been still a rift between John and George, but it’ll heal. George thought of John as a big brother type of figure and knowing his Indian philosophy, forgiveness was the key to success and enlightenment. Ringo would be open to the idea, since he’s always looking for something to do. Who knows? Maybe they’ll release a couple of singles, and perhaps a few concerts like Live Aid and stuff. The magic was still there, he just needed to give it a chance. Yes, John would be very active in the political affairs of today (I would love to know his reaction to the Falklands War) and would have embraced social media as a way of getting his message out.
5.12pm
12 November 2013
Offline Rendersen25 said
To be honest, if John was alive, I think the Beatles would have reunited sometime in the mid 1980’s. By this point, tensions had cooled down between John and Paul, even Yoko had said so. Yes, there would have been a rift between John and George, but it’ll heal. George thought of John as a big brother type of figure and knowing his Indian philosophy, forgiveness was the key to success and enlightenment. Ringo would be open to the idea, since he’s always looking for something to do. Who knows? Maybe they’ll release a couple of singles, and perhaps a few concerts like Live Aid and stuff. The magic was still there, he just needed to give it a chance. Yes, John would be very active in the political affairs of today (I would love to know his reaction to the Falklands War) and would have embraced social media as a way of getting his message out.
Well Paul said in an interview that if John and George were still alive, they would have worked out a reunion.
The following people thank When Im 64 for this post:
HeyTrudIf children are studying the 20th century, I'm in their text books.
- Paul McCartney
8.20pm
6 August 2013
Offline I always felt the Traveling Wilburys inadvertently provided the blueprint to what the Beatles would have been had John not died and they did reunite in the mid-to-late 80s. I always felt the Wembley Live Aid concert in ’85 would have been their surprise “we’re back!” gig (and had that happened, Wembley would have collapsed unto itself) and by ’87 or ’88, the reunited Beatles would have released an album. I feel it would have been their only album but I have always felt strongly that that’s what would have happened.
"There's no such thing as bad student... only bad teacher."
9.25pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I’m not that sure over the Live Aid gig as a reunion would have overshadowed the cause of the concert which is far more important. The money a reformation raised would have gone to others however as finance wouldnt have been the reason for it.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.43pm
8 November 2012
Offline ^^ I could nevertheless see Bob Geldof browbeating persuading the group to take part. It probably would have garnered a tremendous amount of donations.
parlance
12.20am
6 August 2013
Offline meanmistermustard said
I’m not that sure over the Live Aid gig as a reunion would have overshadowed the cause of the concert which is far more important. The money a reformation raised would have gone to others however as finance wouldnt have been the reason for it.
Not trying to slag Live Aid or the reasoning behind it, but if all of a sudden all four Beatles walked on stage and started performing, and only Bob Geldof, the Beatles and maybe a few others were the only ones that knew the band was playing that day, Live Aid would be remembered first and foremost as the Beatles reuniting, moreso than the cause for it. Not saying that’s fair or right, but it would be the truth, in my opinion. (All 2 cents my opinion’s worth.) Sadly, not many people nowadays even know what Live Aid was, and if they do, they either remember it for Queen’s triumphant swan song (though no one knew that at the time), U2’s arrival as a big-time rock band or Phil Collins playing both Wembley and Philly on the same day.
"There's no such thing as bad student... only bad teacher."
12.33am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I just remember reading that one reason stated for there not having been a Beatles reunion was not to upstage the cause of a fundraising concert, maybe Kampuchea. You are right tho about Live Aid, its mostly remembered for the music and not the reason for its coming together.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
5.45am
22 December 2013
Offline WETSRoosa said
meanmistermustard said
I’m not that sure over the Live Aid gig as a reunion would have overshadowed the cause of the concert which is far more important. The money a reformation raised would have gone to others however as finance wouldnt have been the reason for it.Not trying to slag Live Aid or the reasoning behind it, but if all of a sudden all four Beatles walked on stage and started performing, and only Bob Geldof, the Beatles and maybe a few others were the only ones that knew the band was playing that day, Live Aid would be remembered first and foremost as the Beatles reuniting, moreso than the cause for it. Not saying that’s fair or right, but it would be the truth, in my opinion. (All 2 cents my opinion’s worth.) Sadly, not many people nowadays even know what Live Aid was, and if they do, they either remember it for Queen’s triumphant swan song (though no one knew that at the time), U2’s arrival as a big-time rock band or Phil Collins playing both Wembley and Philly on the same day.
“Sadly”, what I remember most about the Live-Aid show was Paul McCartney ‘s microphone being inaudible during his performance of ‘Let It Be ‘. Had anybody’s presence/performance “overshadowed the cause of the concert”, I really don’t think that it would’ve had much negative impact really, if at all. The ‘Do They Know It’s Christmas?’ song has effectively carried on the legacy of Bob Geldof’s passionate campaign each and every year since, just as the “come together” message of ‘We Are The World’ still rings loud. A Beatles’ reunion could only have added to strengthen this cause, in my opinion, for it would’ve been a most significant point in human history that many would still be talking about today, and “the cause” behind “hell freezing over” would no doubt have come up in most conversations…:-)
The following people thank Billy Rhythm for this post:
parlance7.28pm
8 November 2012
Offline meanmistermustard said
I just remember reading that one reason stated for there not having been a Beatles reunion was not to upstage the cause of a fundraising concert, maybe Kampuchea. You are right tho about Live Aid, its mostly remembered for the music and not the reason for its coming together.
I disagree, though maybe it’s a generational thing. As someone who watched it live, yes, I remember it for my favorite bands that performed, but first and foremost I remember it for bringing attention to famine in Ethiopia. Also, it inspired my friends and I to take part in other charities like Hands Across America.
I wasn’t going to comment at first, but since the anniversary for Concert for Bangladesh is this weekend, it occurred to me that my impression of stories about the concert is that people remember it more for the cause than for the performances. And I see Live Aid – the first one anyway, in the same light.
parlance
5 Guest(s)