When you give her Daft Punk as a backing track, she becomes almost palatable.

That's about the best I can say for her.

She's some hippie John Lennon boned, that's about it. She's as much of an artist as any drunk hobo screaming in the streets.

Oh, OK, yeah, that reminds me, there was Archie Luxury's defense of Yoko Ono:

http://youtu.be/1_QBjEppMnE

But he's not really talking about her *art*, he just hates John and is glad she trolled the piss out of him and his fans.

I think people give her way too much shit for supposedly breaking up The Beatles. She really was just at the wrong place at the wrong time, and The Beatles would of broken up anyway, if not sooner.

That said, she's a shitty artist, in that "you have to see it to believe it" sort of way, as in "People actually take this shit seriously?".

This video is awesome, tho.

Oops, wait, that wasn't the video I was thinking of. Well, fuck. What was it called?!

Whatever, try this one:

http://youtu.be/hekpaSRxJa8

Her musical output was better than the entirety of The Beatles.

I've said it on here before, but I got to see Yoko with Sonic Youth as her backdup band at Pitchfork and it kicked ass. Before that, I really didn't give a shit about her, I just knew she was part of the reason for the breaking up of a band whose music I still don't really care for all that much. I didn't even want to see it but was like "oh well, might as well see Yoko once in my life"..

But that was with the ACTUAL Sonic Youth as her backup band. Keep in mind this is from 2010, three years before "Get Lucky" was written, so imagine being in that room trying to feign any sort of excitement or artistic appreciation for this, or in my case, trying not to laugh.

http://instagram.com/p/hcXgWHvBtt/

Easy defense:

Back in the day, people spent a lot of time learning to play instruments, jamming with other musicians, etc etc. A great deal of attention was paid to the craft, and live performances were an opportunity for the musicians to stretch out and do things they couldn't do in the studio.

So when this talentless hack received John's bone and rocketed to stardom based on her shrieking nonsense, it was a radical departure for the era. Now I know, today it seems old hat, as most pop stars are now shrieking nonsense in the crudest form imaginable. Why get excited about this? But at the time, she was a forerunner.

Do any of you doubt that we could put the autotune on her, and make a top 40 hit out of this? Then it would be clear what her artistic expression is all about.

people defending yoko ono

i like her but can't / won't defend her

My personal fave was "Double Fantasy". There you had the last album of what is arguable one of the great rock/pop musicians of that era, where half the tracks were John's sweet songs and the other half were Yoko's artless screechings. And it was impossible to play the album without having to endure that awful banshee. It makes me smile just thinking about it. And it was definitely the future.

Now of course, it's all screaming nonsense with tits. But back then, boy, it was radical.

I completely understand why John Lennon would want Yoko Ono. Being confined to this artificial placating pop treacle so that you could go completely structureless and scream.

I am often curious why Yoko Ono is so reviled compared to some of the other members of the 1950's avante garde musical scene that she worked with, John Cage in particular.

Now that Lennon is dead and Ono is rich as hell, she gets to adopt all of the hatred toward the Manhattan art world in general. And it is well earned.

Also, I LIKE the Plastic Ono Band albums.

Yoko gets more hate because people know who she is.

Because it's MOMA.

It gets worse. She's in their permanent collection, and not for any of this shit, for her Flux Kit, which was made in 1967, before she and Lennon were even officially an item.

The fact is, she was actually kind of avant garde. But then again, who wasn't?

Arse School?

holy shit i wish

The art is convincing rich people to put you in their museum.