I now see the link is no longer active. Here's the new one: https://s3.amazonaws.com/pablostanley/Imagine_colors.jpg Just click on the picture to see it in full size.
I admire Lennon and his stance for peace, and this is a really beautiful song, but I've never shared the message of the lyrics.
The utopia he wishes for isn't one I'd like to live in. A world without "nothing to die for" is a world that's not worth living. Countries and religions have been the cause of many evil things, but also the cause of good and great things, and it gives many people purpose and happiness.
World peace is the goal, but I don't think it should be achieved by the means of homogenizing and sedating mankind.
A world [with] nothing to die for sounds good to me. What's so appealing about needing something so unattractive in life that you want to die to avoid its continuance?
How many times have you actually died for anything?
You missed rocamorar's point. Their point was that most people would die for the things the love. If you don't have anything to die for, then you don't have love. I would die for any member of my family. If I had nothing to die for, then that would be sad.
His idea of utopia isn't one in which nothing is worth killing or dying for, it's one in which nobody has to kill or die for what makes them happy. When he says to imagine there aren't any countries, he's not attacking the cultures that make up those countries, he's attacking the idea that those cultures have to be walled in and controlled by warring governments. This isn't supposed to be a realistic solution to the issues of the world, it's an entirely aspirational questioning of the divisions we take for granted
I get what you're saying, but I don't think the song is meant as an actual platform for government. The sentiment is: why don't we try working towards a world where everyone can be happy, and what are the obstacles to that? I would argue that nationalism, religious fanaticism, and greed are definitely obstacles - so let's try dealing with those?
I acknowledge that the sentiment of the song is a good one, but its lyrics wish for the suppression of countries, religions, and possessions. Not patriotic bigotry, religious fanaticism or abusive greed.
Again: it's poetry, not a platform for government - and I still have to point out that the song does not actually wish for the suppression of those things, but merely asks if we could imagine a world without them. I, for one, can very easily imagine a world without religions, and while that wouldn't save *all* problems, I still think it'd be pretty neat.
@Punewolf, many here will probably refuse to believe this about Lennon no matter what evidence is shown. Lennon's ideaology is popular in today's society. And people today are not interested in hearing the truth. They will blindly agree that he was a great man who wrote the greatest song ever, even though he really wasn't so great a guy.
Whether you like him or not, he's probably the most influential musician of the entire twentieth century. There are others that are often cited as innovators in their time (Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Jimmie Rodgers, Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald), but Lennon is the one whose influence is still most directly at work in music today and in every year since the Beatles landed. The only other ones I can think of who have been consistently influential since their arrival are Bob Dylan, Kurt Cobain, Lennon's bandmate Paul McCartney, and Stephen Sondheim. My very unscientific feeling is that Lennon's influence is the most pervasive among that lot.
Without Hank Williams your list is incomplete. He's the most influential musician of the last 100 years. First popular white musician to openly embrace and acknowledge the the blending of cultures in modern music. Without him there is decent chance there is no one after him on your list.
I think that is quite an overstatement, but I actually thought of Hank Williams and intended to include him on my list. Oversight on my part. But with regard to your last comment...Williams deserves recognition for being among the first, but that does not mean everyone who followed owes him a debt. The mixing of different cultures into pop music is an inevitable result. If he invented something wholly new, that's one thing, but to bring together different styles is admirable but not revelatory in the same way. And in any event, by "most influential," I meant the person you can still identify by listening to modern music. You cannot get away from Johnn Lennon chord changes and phrasings, even in new bands. Hank Williams belongs with Buddy Holly and Fats Domino in that his music was great and he was a pioneer...but you don't really hear what they were doing in modern music, or even in music that came out 30 years ago.
I reckon most people understood that it's easy to "imagine" no possessions if you're sat comfortably in your plush New York penthouse. Great tune though and of course I got 100% by singing it in my head.
You're supposed to imagine that everything is shared rather than that nothing exists for you to possess in the first place. Hence the deliberate use of the word possession which is derived from the verb possess, meaning to own.
The song doesn't preach or condemn people for having possessions, it simply invites people to imagine a better world where there was no need for them. It's easy if you try, a plush New York penthouse will neither help nor hinder your imagination.
It's great to imagine world peace, but it will never happen. For it to happen, there would need to be no dictators, no religious fanaticism, no racism, no greed, etc. Human nature itself will ensure that we will never have world peace. The notion that people are basically good is a flawed concept.
😱😱😱😱
The utopia he wishes for isn't one I'd like to live in. A world without "nothing to die for" is a world that's not worth living. Countries and religions have been the cause of many evil things, but also the cause of good and great things, and it gives many people purpose and happiness.
World peace is the goal, but I don't think it should be achieved by the means of homogenizing and sedating mankind.
How many times have you actually died for anything?
Seen openly mocking people with learning difficulties.
The song doesn't preach or condemn people for having possessions, it simply invites people to imagine a better world where there was no need for them. It's easy if you try, a plush New York penthouse will neither help nor hinder your imagination.
I would love to believe in the peace expounded by Lennon in his better moments.
But often I'm too cynical to fully believe.
Great song, though.