The John Lennon Question

If John Lennon was 20 today, would he still be a musician? If so, what kind of music would he do, and would he be successful?

This question popped into my head today for no real reason. I was listening to the radio, and some song from the 90s came on (I actually don't remember what it was). And I started to wonder if the artist in question would've been successful today. Or did her musical talent just happen to fit what happened to be popular in the 1990s?

And that's no fun. Who cares about some random female singer in the 1990s? Let's make this significant. So I picked John Lennon, who many regard as a musical genius. And no matter what you think of the man, he changed music forever.

So take John Lennon, and give him the exact same childhood and upbringing fifty years later. So he'll have the same interests, the same morals, the same ethics, and the same personality. Now, I understand that part of what made him John Lennon was the music of his time and his reaction to it. But, for the sake of the thought, let's pretend that John Lennon is John Lennon today.

The first question: does modern John Lennon go into music? Was the music of his time so influential to him that he had to go into music, and would the music of our time have the same effect on him? If not, would he have done something different in his life? Maybe a different form of artistic expression? Or does he end up working at Merrill Lynch?

The second question: if he chooses music, what kind of music does he do? And I guess the next question would actually be whether or not the void left by John Lennon being snatched out of history was filled by anyone else? And I think, again for the sake of the thought, that someone filled John Lennon's role and music is the exact same.

So what type of music would he do? This is the part where I'm no longer qualified to answer. So I went to a friend, who is much more qualified. And I'll let you in on his answer, not revealing his name just in case he doesn't want seven other people to know his thoughts.

"Yeah, he would be (a musician), but with the Internet and just how the world is, he'd be more of an artist who just also happens to make music. I would say he'd be more like Jason Collette and Broken Social Scene, but not overly successful. That is, if he's on his own and there wouldn't be a modern day Beatles"

Very interesting answer. It's hard to say exactly what would happen, but it brings me to the most important question.

How much of success depends on when you're born? Or do geniuses find a way to work with what they have in the environment they're in?

Was John Lennon a genius that understood the music scene, found a void, filled it, and revolutionized the way music sounds? And, being a genius, could he do the same thing today? Or, like the 90s singer, did he just happen to thrive in an environment that embraced his particular skill set? Would John Lennon form a Coldplay-like band and be massively successful? Or would he be a struggling artist in London, forever wondering why no one understands his genius?

How many John Lennons are out there right now, wondering why they weren't born in the 40s? How many people would've been better off in a different era, past or future? How many people would've been much worse?

Or does it not matter? Does success just find certain people no matter what? Would Einstein have been as influential if E=MC2 had already been discovered? Would he have discovered something different? Or would he be some random guy in the patent office, trying to think of the next Snuggie?

Would Abraham Lincoln be a successful politician? Would George Washington be a successful military leader? How would Aristotle function in today's world? Would Martin Luther find a way to make an impact on modern religion? What about Da Vinci? Or Napoleon? Or Julius Caesar?

It's a really interesting question to me. And, hopefully, you find it just as fascinating.