Publisher at The American Bystander
is Blogmom of Hey Dullblog. His novels and parodies have sold 1.25 million copies in 25 languages. He lives in Santa Monica, CA, and runs The American Bystander all-star print humor magazine.
Latest posts by Michael Gerber (see all)
- From Faith Current: “The Sacred Ordinary: St. Peter’s Church Hall” - May 1, 2023
- A brief (?) hiatus - April 22, 2023
- Something Happened - March 6, 2023
Lennon, post-shearing, 1966
is worth more than your car. (Probably.)
A lock of Lennon’s hair clipped in 1966 for his role in “How I Won The War” has been sold at auction for a whopping $35,000. (That is one smart “German hairdresser.”)
No word as to whether the “U.K.-based collector” is planning on cloning Mr. John, like a Canadian dentist is attempting. Dr. Michael Zuk bought a tooth, and thinks that entitles him to the whole thing. He says he wants to raise John II as his own son, keeping him away from booze and cigarettes. (And, perhaps, conceptual artists? At least until he cuts a few records?)
“You did what to me? And then you cloned me so you could still have me around? You people are crazy.“
Related posts:
Attention Millionaires: Beatles for Sale! (including John and Yoko’s Sexual History)
John Lennon: Witness for the (Marijuana) Defense
Do female Beatles fans understand John and Paul better?
Why I love John Lennon
Just how blind was John Lennon without his glasses?
John and Paul, Friends and Rivals
Update: George Harrison’s India photos (and John’s Spain ones)
John Lennon’s…
There are a lot of beetles
Paul Better Than John? Hell Has Frozen Over!
John Lennon and Branwell Bronte
John Lennon, Where Are You?
everything will be fine until he auditions for The Voice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxwHA9kXDKw
Yoko auctioned off a lot of John’s belongings, instead of just giving freely to John’s firstborn son, the items he asked for and eventually had to purchase from her or those who bought those items at auction. Now there are those who bought his tooth, and his shorn hair, from those who sold them. And too Yoko has been selling his image on bric-a-brac, whatnots, knick knacks, etc. Had he been buried, I suppose there would be those who would dig up, desecrate, plunder. If it is possible, his ashes would spin. I hope his soul rip.
Aren’t the real questions
1) who owns which DNA, and what can we do with DNA found?
2) The idea that cloning with John’s DNA means cloning the artist or person or personality is not even science fiction.
Question two and speculation in that direction is fully nonsense. The environment in which the physical body develops has so much influence that it is unlikely to create a person or personality similar to the John Lennon we know, even if he looks similar or very much alike.
playful thought: how come and why would the cloned Lennon display the same indecent behavior, apparently void of empathy, as the original unkind Lennon who made jokes about spastic or otherwise disabled people?
Simple, you just create a “Boys from Brazil” type scenario, where you recreate all the conditions of John’s early life. Of course, a hell of a lot of people are going to have to die along the way, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
“Who owns which DNA, and what can we do with DNA found?“
Great question, Rob. Trying to “clone” John is so crazy as to not be worth discussing, but it does raise some interesting questions. Here in Canada we have something called the DNA Protection Act, which expressly restricts the sampling of DNA for law enforcement purposes. That dentist might be in a world of trouble. 😉
Thank you for that funny video, Hologram Sam. I like it. As for cloning John Lennon: I thought that happened when Julian was born. But maybe not. I do know that many people wonder what would have happened if John never got shot. As it is, when the bullets left the gun…many people felt the hit. I suppose it is a normal human reaction to want to bring someone back who died too soon. But that will never really happen. So I suppose the lesson here is to cherish the living who offer amazing things to this world. And do our best to contribute amazing things of our own, after those living have gone. Even if it just makes somebody laugh. In our world today…we need a whole lot more humor! I rest my hair…er…case.
And you could’ve seen this coming:
The buyer of the hair is now selling it off strand-by-strand. A half-inch strand sells for £399, and comes on a card which reads “Imagine no possessions.”
(Just kidding. I added that last part.)
[h/t Linda S!]
I was just thinking. How do we know this piece of hair lock is really John Lennon’s?
It may be, but how would anyone be able to prove otherwise after all these years, decades? What was it that P. T. Barnum said? “There’s one born every minute!”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen that photo of John before. I really like it. Thanks for the view, Mike.
It was taken back at the hotel while John was filming How I Won The War. I like it too.
I liked it, too, Craig. It was one I’d never seen before.
Changes in hair often are a way people mark big life changes — and given the role that hair played in the Beatles’ story, getting his locks cut off for “How I Won The War” must’ve been quite a psychological moment for John.
Here’s another neat photo of John from the shearing period…
Lennon kept that same Beatles haircut for years, finally getting it cut for “How I Won The War” must’ve triggered something in him. From that moment until the end of his life, he changed his hairstyle an absurd amount of times. If you do a google search of John Lennon images you could get a collection of 50 photos and 40 of them have him with a different hairstyle.
Deep down it must’ve been a sort of identity issue type of thing. Changing his hair was sort of life turning a new leaf maybe?
Not everything with John has to be an issue. He wouldn’t be the first rock star to change his hairstyle frequently. It’s part of fashion.
@Michelle…Yep, just like with Paul, not everything has to be an issue. Paul wasn’t the first rock star to change his hairstyle in the seventies and to the shag which you or others here miscalled the trashy looking “mullets.” Those shags or you or someone here called them “trashy looking mullets” were part of fashion….others said here he was looking like or trying to look like a a fourteen year old but most older guys then wore those “trashy looking mullets” which were called shags then because, just as you said it’s just part of fashion, and just as you say about john, Not everything about Paul has to bean issue. You made a better argument in defense of not everything having to be an issue and hairstyles or anything being part of the fashion.
Once I grew older, I saw through John and George’s spiel and self promotion about their own coolness and saw that really cool folks don’t go around announcing their coolness but simply are cool .
Thank you, Michelle, for making a better argument than not everything about any of the individuals had to be a big deal and that rock singers change their hair along the way, though you may not have intended to because you were……in your defense of John, not Paul.
I want to point out, in response to this whole thread since Henry’s comment, something that I think is important.
.
Henry raised a question: was changing his hair one of the ways Lennon explored new facets of his identity? And he grounded that question in the observation that Lennon had the same haircut until he acted in How I Won The War.
.
I’d love responses that engaged with the possibilities raised by that question. How might the experience of acting in that film, and looking different, have interacted with Lennon’s other experiences at the time? How might the way he chose to shape his appearance be understood as his effort to say something about what he was thinking and feeling at the time? And how might we consider the other Beatles’ choices in this arena as saying something about their states of mind at different times?
.
I’d like to think we can do that kind of exploration here with some tolerance. I’ve noticed that some people comment just once and don’t return, or comment very rarely, and I wonder how much of that is due to the responses they receive.
.
From my point of view the main reason to be here, reading posts and comments, is for all of us to think about possibilities that might never have occurred to us.
Judging by the hairstyles of both John and Paul in 1980, they were ready to reunite.
Now this made me laugh!
.
In all seriousness, one change I see between the Beatles’ 60’s hairstyles and the styles of all four later is that they were no longer setting trends in this area. The early “moptop” look was iconic and hugely influential, but after that they were more in line with counterculture or “rock” trends than they were setting them, I’d say. Not a big criticism, just an observation.
Lennon hairstyles reminds me of SINEAD O’connor and Brittany later shaving their heads. While others adapt hairstyles to era styles and career changes, equivalent to a regular person getting a hair cut for a job interview, I’m no psychiatrist here’s but I’ve read, borderline folks change their hair and look often but when stabled do thst less often. Again, I’m no psychiatrist but John appeared to have borderline characteristics.
Early solo Beatles different looks changed in seventies, very long hair George,bearded Paul in seventies early hippie era, shorter haired George before tour and stylish Paul hair before big tour, permed George hair late seventies and punk look shorter haired Paul Late seventies. It was ringo in a drunken down time who completely shaved his head in late seventies. There were many different male hairstyles in seventies as I’ve noted in earlier posts but John indeed changed his hair frequently, brushing it up and back early sixties style just before he died.
Indeed, it was the Beatles moo too hair style then called as most culturally influential. I do remember when most average younger guys did not begin growing hair longer until later in 67 and when schools had dress codes including about length of men’s hair. I likewise remember the crew cuts and very short male hair styles of early sixties before Beatles. The Beatles influence on male hair styles last about as long as their influence overall on music and the culture. Western culture is very intolerant of varied male hairstyles most especially in very conservative times, as in the fifties particularly, once again in the eighties and especially today when conservatism is again popular and folks go so far as to give male sixties seventies male hair styles a denigrating name.
No question that Beatles only hair trend setting style was their initial one and afterwards group and solo they were followers. One huge thing they did with the long hair on men style was push boundaries of sexist stereotypes and on judging folks for appearance and hair style choices. Beatles succeeded with and influenced many folks a long time but sadly failed long term as many in western countries appear back to judging especially men on their hairstyles and ridicule men in particularly for their style choices because throughout most of the world, especially in western countries, conservatism, associated short haired men is again in style.