Would John have liked Madonna to sing Imagine?

[Cologne girl]

You all will probably disagree, but ALMOST anyone other than John singing Imagine is "sacreligious" to me. It's a great song, not my favorite, but John loved it and it really was alot of what he was about. It is just....his song. I dunno, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

In fact I do disagree - I think the songs lends itself quite well to being covered (which of course does not mean that any moron can have a go). For me, the most beautiful cover version I have ever heard was the one done by the Spanish singers Javier Gurruchaga and Ana Belén - the male voice and the female voice together gave it a very special feel, one of the "brotherhood and sisterhood of man" John himself invoked when performing it live on some occasion.

[Berkeleyan]

I think most significant songs must be left uncovered.
John's version of "Imagine" is definitive IMHO; any covers won't move me as the original version.

[Mike]

Madona, well, she's at it again isn't she. Now she puts herself on a cross during her live show. I heard a commentry last night that said if Madona is so brave and bold, why doesn't she have the carton of Mahomad up there ? No Christian bashing and in particular Catholic bashing is easier as we aren't going to chop off anyone's head in retaliation.

[Berkeleyan]

I think all she wants is all media attention and adulation (and with it CD/DVD sales) she can get.

These days people like her want to cause controversy with commercial reasons. Religion bashing is bad per se and we could do without an old performer's tricks to prolong her "reign" in the music business and make youngsters forget how old she is already. Just pathetic !

[Mike]

My kids range from 9 to 25, they younger ones understand the McCartney, Beatle thing but when they see Madonna they go, ewhhh! It is so uncool. Like they were switching around the TV and saw Janet Jackson on Oprah, doing the same old dancing crap with a mic strapped to her head LYPSYNCING, it was so old. Then when the song ended, to go to commercial they started the song mid-way so to blend to commercial and she just looked down to the ground as the sound track played back what she was lypsyncing to. Just not my cup of tea as per entertainment goes.

[Cologne girl]

I think most significant songs must be left uncovered.
John's version of "Imagine" is definitive IMHO; any covers won't move me as the original version.

Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion - but I think a good cover of "Imagine" is a good thing because it helps spread the message among people who maybe don't even know the original.

I think one characteristic of many good songs is precisely that they cannot be entirely messed up even by covering them. Or do you think that all the zillions of covers of "Yesterday" are rubbish?

[Rene]

Actually, I do think pretty much all of the covers of "Yesterday" are rubbish. I just don't enjoy them. I do understand why anyone would want to cover it, but it just doesn't work for me. Some songs need to be left alone.

I agree with Berkleyan...I can't think of any covers that move me as much as the original. Most don't move me at all.

Come on, the self proclamed "material girl" singing "Imagine"?!?! A bit contradictory in my mind.

Imagine no possessions...not very materialistic. She's a phony who is trying to change her image as far as I'm concerned. But of course...thats just my never to be humble opinion

[Cologne girl]

The funny thing is, the Beatles themselves did a lot of covers in their day, and most people agree that they did a pretty good job, and some of their covers were actually better than the originals, to a point of making the songs "theirs" (there was a thread about this not long ago) - "Twist and Shout", "Rock'n'Roll Music"... Later, John put out "Rock'n'Roll", packed with excellent covers (his version of "Stand By Me" just can't be topped), and then came Macca with "Run Devil Run". So I don't know why some of you are so much against covers - they are not per se a bad thing, however "sacred" the original may be - but that - again - is just my humble opinion.

[Rene]

The Beatles covering a tune is a different story. They are The Beatles.

They could take anything and make it their own. Paul, John, George or Ringo could do the same thing on their own. I was introduced to Bill Monroe by Paul singing "Blue Moon of Kentucky". In my mind, it is still Paul's song. They have the ability to do that and have earned it simply by who they are/were.

I still don't think it is appropriate or desirable for Madonna or any other "singer" like her to cover "Imagine". To me that is kind of like Marylin Manson singing "Amazing Grace". It just doesn't work because it isn't real...genuine. The only person I could even conceive of having the right to carry that torch, besides a fellow Beatle, would maybe be Bono. He lives it and in a way has carried on with John's message of humanity and peace. Maybe Sean or Julian but definately not Madonna.

Back to the original question...I think John would be totally offended by any of it. He was real. She (Madonna) isn't.

[Berkeleyan]

I think most significant songs must be left uncovered.
John's version of "Imagine" is definitive IMHO; any covers won't move me as the original version.

Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion - but I think a good cover of "Imagine" is a good thing because it helps spread the message among people who maybe don't even know the original.

I think one characteristic of many good songs is precisely that they cannot be entirely messed up even by covering them. Or do you think that all the zillions of covers of "Yesterday" are rubbish?

Hey Koln girl, you have a point, fair and square. But I'm a "purist" when it comes to have other artists cover a classic song. I really don'r care for cover versions, with rare exceptions: for instance I love Joey Ramone's cover of "What a beatiful world" as an all out rocker ! So I'm not completed biased towards original versions of classic songs....