I think 'Imagine' is heard on these occasions simply as a peace song. Typically of Lennon, it is double edged. People want to hear it as a blueprint - who wouldn't want peace? - but in the lyrics there is a list of what he felt would have to be given up in order to achieve peace. The question is whether anyone can do so. For example, those with Christianity initially warm to the idea of peace in the song but find that they have to check their assumptions from the very first line when he sings "imagine there's no heaven". They may then instinctively turn against it, thereby to his mind proving his point that religion is, or can be, divisive.
As for those who are atheist, they aren't let off the hook either. They don't necessarily oppose any item on the list but as soon as he sings "imagine there's no countries" in verse 2, they are challenged because it doesn't seem realistic. By verse 3, it is "imagine no possessions". People keep with it because he also sings at that point of an absence of hunger and greed, which no one could oppose, but they have started to fall away from full endorsement because having no possessions seems absurd.
So by the end of it, he has alienated virtually everyone from his peace argument. No one can keep to it on the terms he has set out, either because of religious belief or on the grounds of plausibility, and yet equally he knows that no one is willing to accept responsibility for warmongering. Warmongers are always other people. Hence it is almost inevitable that the song will be turned into a peace anthem with everyone telling themselves they sign up to all of it. Whoever is singing it, it is sung with inconvenient words being ignored by the individual according to how it suits him or her to get along. And if the house owner or the car owner can ignore the word "possessions", or pretend it means something else, the Christian can do the same with the word "religion".
The music is gentle and hymn like so that too encourages us to accept that it is a song which joins us together while actually we all mean slightly different things. And in a funny way, it works especially well precisely because differences are then overcome. It isn't singing from a hymn sheet. It is supposed to be a way of unifying different minded people and the song achieves that aim.
I think it is a very intelligent song which for all of its remarkably ability to bring folk together still makes people either question themselves or feel slightly uneasy about their selfishness deep down. Everyone is to blame for disunity. The seeds of the song were in a few lines written by Yoko Ono. Given her background and a pretty spiky character, that probably tells us quite a lot.
Last year Cee Lo Green caused uproar by changing the line on religion to "And all religion's true". That makes me laugh. This is a guy whose records are so sweary that they have to be bleeped in order to be played on the radio but he is staunch on a lyric about religion. Rather than being full of humility, he is sufficiently egotistical to change a worldwide standard held in high regard.
Jimmy Carter said that he had visited 125 countries and found that in many "Imagine" was virtually a second national anthem. This too goes to the essence of the song. Presumably they all pretend that the line "imagine there's no countries" doesn't exist or that somehow there can be support both for having countries and no countries. But any unity is always built on contradictions.
As for those who are atheist, they aren't let off the hook either. They don't necessarily oppose any item on the list but as soon as he sings "imagine there's no countries" in verse 2, they are challenged because it doesn't seem realistic. By verse 3, it is "imagine no possessions". People keep with it because he also sings at that point of an absence of hunger and greed, which no one could oppose, but they have started to fall away from full endorsement because having no possessions seems absurd.
So by the end of it, he has alienated virtually everyone from his peace argument. No one can keep to it on the terms he has set out, either because of religious belief or on the grounds of plausibility, and yet equally he knows that no one is willing to accept responsibility for warmongering. Warmongers are always other people. Hence it is almost inevitable that the song will be turned into a peace anthem with everyone telling themselves they sign up to all of it. Whoever is singing it, it is sung with inconvenient words being ignored by the individual according to how it suits him or her to get along. And if the house owner or the car owner can ignore the word "possessions", or pretend it means something else, the Christian can do the same with the word "religion".
The music is gentle and hymn like so that too encourages us to accept that it is a song which joins us together while actually we all mean slightly different things. And in a funny way, it works especially well precisely because differences are then overcome. It isn't singing from a hymn sheet. It is supposed to be a way of unifying different minded people and the song achieves that aim.
I think it is a very intelligent song which for all of its remarkably ability to bring folk together still makes people either question themselves or feel slightly uneasy about their selfishness deep down. Everyone is to blame for disunity. The seeds of the song were in a few lines written by Yoko Ono. Given her background and a pretty spiky character, that probably tells us quite a lot.
Last year Cee Lo Green caused uproar by changing the line on religion to "And all religion's true". That makes me laugh. This is a guy whose records are so sweary that they have to be bleeped in order to be played on the radio but he is staunch on a lyric about religion. Rather than being full of humility, he is sufficiently egotistical to change a worldwide standard held in high regard.
Jimmy Carter said that he had visited 125 countries and found that in many "Imagine" was virtually a second national anthem. This too goes to the essence of the song. Presumably they all pretend that the line "imagine there's no countries" doesn't exist or that somehow there can be support both for having countries and no countries. But any unity is always built on contradictions.
Comment