1980: John Lennon shot dead Former Beatle John Lennon has been shot dead by an unknown gunman who opened fire outside the musician's New York apartment. The 40-year-old was shot several times as he entered the Dakota, his luxury apartment building on Manhattan's Upper West Side, opposite Central Park, at 2300 local time.
He was rushed in a police car to St Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, where he died.
His wife, Yoko Ono, who is understood to have witnessed the attack, was with him.
Shots heard
A police spokesman said a suspect was in custody, but he had no other details of the shooting.
"This was no robbery," the spokesman said, adding that Mr Lennon was probably shot by a "deranged" person.
Witness reports say at least three shots were fired and others have claimed they heard six.
There are also reports Mr Lennon staggered up six steps into the vestibule after he was shot, before collapsing.
Jack Douglas, Lennon's producer, said he and the Lennons had been at a studio called the Record Plant in mid-town earlier in the evening and Lennon left at 2230.
Mr Lennon said he planned to have some dinner and then return home, Mr Douglas said.
Fans at scene
The Lennons are said to have left their limousine on the street and walked up the driveway when the gunman opened fire.
It is unclear whether the man had been lying in wait in the entrance to the building for Mr Lennon, or whether he came up behind him.
Witnesses describe the gunman as a "pudgy kind of man", 35 to 40 years old with brown hair.
Other former band members, Paul McCartney, guitarist George Harrison and drummer Ringo Starr are thought to have been informed of Lennon's murder.
Fans have already begun arriving at the scene, many still unaware Lennon has died.
Mr Lennon is survived by his wife, their son Sean, and his son from a previous marriage, Julian.
I remember that day well. I was 23. It was the next day, Tuesday, December 9 when I heard the bad news.. I had gone to bed early for a change, and so did not watch the 11:00 news.
I got my paper the next day, and there it was on the front page.
I was in shock. The Beatles have been my favorite group, ever since I had seen them on Ed Sullivan, in February, 1964.
John had always been my favorite Beatle. He had the best voice in the band, IMO.
Hard to believe that this much time has passed already!
I actually got together with some friends today for a road trip and we listened to lots of Beatles and it somehow was missed that today was the anniversary of his death.
Quote: Captain Sammitch said: It's sad, really. They missed Yoko entirely. I think that's who they were aiming for - anyone with any sense woulda capped her long before that.
Ono's Driver Held on Extortion Suspicion By TOM HAYS, Associated Press Writer 4 hours ago
NEW YORK - A chauffeur for Yoko Ono has been arrested for trying to extort $2 million from her by threatening to circulate embarrassing photos, and he also spoke of killing her and son Sean Lennon, police said.
Koral Karsan was arrested Wednesday after Ono reported the plot, New York police spokesman Paul Browne said. Charges were pending.
There was no immediate response to a telephone message left at Karsan's home in Amityville, N.Y., and it was unclear whether he had a lawyer.
The security staff for Ono, John Lennon's widow, told detectives that Karsan told her in a rambling note that he had secretly photographed her and made audiotapes of her in private moments and warned he would make the material public if she didn't pay him, police said.
On Dec. 8, the 26th anniversary of Lennon's killing, Karsan dropped off the note and a photo of Ono in nightclothes at the Dakota apartment building, where the former Beatle once lived with her and where she still resides, police said.
Karsan, 50, talked about killing her, her son and himself during a later conversation with one of her associates that was recorded by investigators, police said.
On the night of Dec. 8, 1980, Lennon was returning with Ono to the Dakota from a recording studio when Mark David Chapman opened fire with a .38-caliber revolver, hitting him four times.
John Lennon didn't give peace a chance at home - where he callously abused and routinely tormented the women closest to him.
The music legend was prone to unprovoked acts of cruelty, jealous rage and perverse sexual fantasies, according to the explosive new tell-all "John Lennon: The Life" by Beatles biographer Philip Norman.
The fans who flocked to Strawberry Fields in Central Park yesterday to celebrate what would have been Lennon's 68th birthday might want to stay away from the exposé, which chronicles his callous treatment of Yoko, the physical and verbal abuse of his two sons, and his chronic infidelities.
When they first began dating, Lennon forced Yoko to write down a list of men she'd slept with so he could pore over the names, treating each like a "mortal enemy."
He also admitted to Yoko that he regretted never bedding his mother, Julia, who was struck and killed by a speeding off-duty cop's car when John was 17.
He also showed his venomous side to his children.
Julian, Lennon's son with Cynthia, was all but ignored by the absentee musician, who would go for years without seeing him. In the rare moments he shared with his son, Lennon could be abusive.
One friend recalls Lennon yelling, "No, I'm not going to mend your f---ing bicycle," to his young son.
Well, at least we now know what "Mother" was really about.
I'd think the big story would be if it were authorized, you know, what with the subject being dead nearly thirty years and all...
However, it should probably be noted that the book was, in fact, written with Yoko Ono's cooperation: "Ono.... contributed extensively and even convinced son Sean Lennon to speak to [the author]."
John Lennon didn't give peace a chance at home - where he callously abused and routinely tormented the women closest to him.
The music legend was prone to unprovoked acts of cruelty, jealous rage and perverse sexual fantasies, according to the explosive new tell-all "John Lennon: The Life" by Beatles biographer Philip Norman.
The fans who flocked to Strawberry Fields in Central Park yesterday to celebrate what would have been Lennon's 68th birthday might want to stay away from the exposé, which chronicles his callous treatment of Yoko, the physical and verbal abuse of his two sons, and his chronic infidelities.
When they first began dating, Lennon forced Yoko to write down a list of men she'd slept with so he could pore over the names, treating each like a "mortal enemy."
He also admitted to Yoko that he regretted never bedding his mother, Julia, who was struck and killed by a speeding off-duty cop's car when John was 17.
He also showed his venomous side to his children.
Julian, Lennon's son with Cynthia, was all but ignored by the absentee musician, who would go for years without seeing him. In the rare moments he shared with his son, Lennon could be abusive.
One friend recalls Lennon yelling, "No, I'm not going to mend your f---ing bicycle," to his young son.
Well, at least we now know what "Mother" was really about.
Paul was always more of a father to Julian than John. Julian will be the first to say that. Paul wrote Hey Jude for Julian.
However, it should probably be noted that the book was, in fact, written with Yoko Ono's cooperation: "Ono.... contributed extensively and even convinced son Sean Lennon to speak to [the author]."
Suddenly you're believing Yoko Ono? The woman(?) who every three months comes up with some frivolous Lennon-related lawsuit as her only way to stay relevant? (like the time she sued Paul for claiming he authored Yesterday)
Not that she even supports the book, but I'm guessing there's no need to clarify that you left out the part of the quote that mentions that.
You said the book was "unauthorized" in order to advance in argument that it was inaccurate. I simply pointed out that, far from being completely "unauthorized," his widow and son cooperated in the writing of the book.
A lot of talented people were/are bastards in real life: Miles Davis, Warren Zevon, Frank Sinatra spring immediately. Why do you need to cling to the fiction they weren't in order to enjoy their music?
The fact that they were interviewed doesn't mean they approve the biography, or that their testimonials were accurately represented in the book. That's kind of a silly argument, G.
I don't think Lennon was a perfect guy, but it's pretty obvious that all these controversial biographies that have been popping up in the past decade are mostly full of shit. Here's a guy who's respected by millions of people around the world, possibly more than the Pope... anything bad you say about his is gonna get a lot of attention. It's easy to throw shit at his image and collect the money. These guys are just as opportunistic as Yoko.
Pariah nerdy Moderator Triteness kicks us in the nads. 15000+ posts Mon Oct 13 2008 12:08 AM Reading a post Forum: Media Thread: Remembering John Lennon.
Pariah nerdy Moderator Triteness kicks us in the nads. 15000+ posts Mon Oct 13 2008 12:29 AM Reading a post Forum: Media Thread: Remembering John Lennon.
Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man shocked User That's no moon 10000+ posts Mon Oct 13 2008 12:31 AM Reading a post Forum: Media Thread: Remembering John Lennon.
John Lennon didn't give peace a chance at home - where he callously abused and routinely tormented the women closest to him.
The music legend was prone to unprovoked acts of cruelty, jealous rage and perverse sexual fantasies, according to the explosive new tell-all "John Lennon: The Life" by Beatles biographer Philip Norman.
The fans who flocked to Strawberry Fields in Central Park yesterday to celebrate what would have been Lennon's 68th birthday might want to stay away from the exposé, which chronicles his callous treatment of Yoko, the physical and verbal abuse of his two sons, and his chronic infidelities.
When they first began dating, Lennon forced Yoko to write down a list of men she'd slept with so he could pore over the names, treating each like a "mortal enemy."
He also admitted to Yoko that he regretted never bedding his mother, Julia, who was struck and killed by a speeding off-duty cop's car when John was 17.
He also showed his venomous side to his children.
Julian, Lennon's son with Cynthia, was all but ignored by the absentee musician, who would go for years without seeing him. In the rare moments he shared with his son, Lennon could be abusive.
One friend recalls Lennon yelling, "No, I'm not going to mend your f---ing bicycle," to his young son.
Well, at least we now know what "Mother" was really about.
G-man hates peace and love.
lennon has talked about his own flaws before, he was pretty open. a lot of the stuff mentioned in your article sounds a lot like the bizarre rightwing attack jobs thrown out at any celebrity who gains political momentum, oddly even those dead 28 years. a little sad really.
Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man shocked User That's no moon 10000+ posts Mon Oct 13 2008 12:35 AM Reading a post Forum: Media Thread: Remembering John Lennon.
Yeah, there's nothing bad you can say about Lennon that he didn't talk about himself in his Plastic Ono Band album. Fuck, he mentions his biggest flaw in the title!
Here's a guy who's respected by millions of people around the world....
You're right, Mxy.
The mere fact a celebrity is loved by millions of people around the world means that the celebrity is above reproach:
And, of course, such a celebrity could never have "mother issues":
Or twisted attitudes about sex:
What was I thinking? John Lennon was obviously the closest thing the world ever saw to a perfect human being. Maybe, when he rises from the grave as befitting his holy power, he can actually BE the Pope.
Oh G-man, you are so foolish. How easy it is for people to speak ill of the dead with them no longer around to defend themselves.
I might one day feel the need to tell the story of how Johnny Cash once decided to have sexual intercourse with a three year old boy.
Or that Warren Zevon had a penchant for looking at naked photographs of a young Shirley Temple.
Please try to remember that Heather Mills tried to tell the world that Sir Paul McCartney liked to beat upon her, but she forgot to wait until he was dead, so he was able to refute such claims. John Lennon cannot do this.
What was I thinking? John Lennon was obviously the closest thing the world ever saw to a perfect human being. Maybe, when he rises from the grave as befitting his holy power, he can actually BE the Pope.
Whoa, th-th-that's exactly what I said! G-man, there's no need to repeat my words. We can all clearly see that I said Lennon was "above reproach", a (if not the) perfect being, the epitome of human evolution. Please, G-man. We know this already.
This is supposed to be a lawyer? You're a fucking joke. Go play with whomod or rex. You belong at their level.
How easy it is for people to speak ill of the dead with them no longer around to defend themselves.
I might one day feel the need to tell the story of how .... Warren Zevon had a penchant for looking at naked photographs of a young Shirley Temple...
Actually, according to his ex-wife and kids, Warren Zevon was a mean drunk, a wife beater and kind of a shitty dad who's deathbed words to his only son were along the lines of "toss out my homemade porn collection."
I still like his music but I don't feel the need to delude myself into thinking that this talent makes him some sort of Messiah.
Your acolyte Mxy, on the other hand, seems to think that popularity as a dead celebrity makes someone immune from critical discussion.
This isn't critical discussion. You know that. This is a small man cutting and pasting any Lennon-bashing article he sees, regardless of its credibility. You were having a cheap laugh at a celebrity you dislike. I can understand that: I've probably done it myself. But don't try to elevate your garbage and pass it off as a valid opinion.
How easy it is for people to speak ill of the dead with them no longer around to defend themselves.
I might one day feel the need to tell the story of how .... Warren Zevon had a penchant for looking at naked photographs of a young Shirley Temple...
Actually, according to his ex-wife and kids, Warren Zevon was a mean drunk, a wife beater and kind of a shitty dad who's deathbed words to his only son were along the lines of "toss out my homemade porn collection."
I still like his music but I don't feel the need to delude myself into thinking that this talent makes him some sort of Messiah.
Your acolyte Mxy, on the other hand, seems to think that popularity as a dead celebrity makes someone immune from critical discussion.
But from the point that Mxy, and David are making is that, yes it may be true, but at the same time it could be total bullshit, as the person in question is not here to defend themselves, yet you seem to accept all this as fact.
Lets say you died tomorrow, and we wrote on your obituary that you sent every man on this board, naked pictures of yourself, fucking a goat. Should this then be reported as fact?
How easy it is for people to speak ill of the dead with them no longer around to defend themselves.
I might one day feel the need to tell the story of how .... Warren Zevon had a penchant for looking at naked photographs of a young Shirley Temple...
Actually, according to his ex-wife and kids, Warren Zevon was a mean drunk, a wife beater and kind of a shitty dad who's deathbed words to his only son were along the lines of "toss out my homemade porn collection."
I still like his music but I don't feel the need to delude myself into thinking that this talent makes him some sort of Messiah.
Your acolyte Mxy, on the other hand, seems to think that popularity as a dead celebrity makes someone immune from critical discussion.
But from the point that Mxy, and David are making is that, yes it may be true, but at the same time it could be total bullshit, as the person in question is not here to defend themselves, yet you seem to accept all this as fact.
Lets say you died tomorrow, and we wrote on your obituary that you sent every man on this board, naked pictures of yourself, fucking a goat. Should this then be reported as fact?
This isn't critical discussion. You know that. This is a small man cutting and pasting any Lennon-bashing article he sees, regardless of its credibility. You were having a cheap laugh at a celebrity you dislike.
I neither particularly like or dislike Lennon. I think he wrote some good songs but, beyond that, I no more care about him that I do any other 60s-70s era Brit invasion singer-songwriter.
If anything, the only aspect of him I "dislike" (beyond the obvious distate for how the treated his kid) is watching people try to deify a talented, but flawed, human being beyong all point of rationality.
Yeah, Johnny Cash was a great entertainer, if not the greatest singer-songwriter of the past fifty years. But I don't think people should deify him to the point of calling for holidays, national parks, etc., or comparing him to the Pope.
I always saw John Lennon as a self righteous bitch. I thought he was a good singer, and a even better writer. You could tell Julian had been abused by the way he carried himself in interviews, whether it was by Yoko or John or both, who only they really know.
To me he wasn't likable, but he wasn't running for prom king. In his job as a musician he was very good.
If anything, the only aspect of him I "dislike" (beyond the obvious distate for how the treated his kid) is watching people try to deify a talented, but flawed, human being beyong all point of rationality.
Irrationally vilifying a flawed, but still human, person isn't any better. Let's get some perspective here: you literally accused him of wanting to fuck his mother. I find that a lot more disgusting and irrational than Beardguy's idolization of the guy.
Actually, that quote you dug up ties into my point. John Lennon was killed and, as a result, a lot of foolish people deify him beyond his talent when, had he lived, he'd probably have the same rep as McCartney.
You'll also notice that I said I wished he'd lived so he could divorce that bitch Yoko which is hardly wishing the man ill.
One thing is "deifying him beyond his talent". Another is calling him a motherfucker. That has nothing to do with the amount of talent he did or didn't have.
If you want people to stop treating him like a god, fine, say that. But if you think saying he wanted to fuck his mother humanizes him, then, fuck, you're the one who's messed up.
Lennon wa sbetter than McCartney at writing lyrics that hit a note, but most of his music writing is pretty basic.
well that's rock for you. seriously, we've had I-IV-V chord structures since the late renaissance, and it's still a rare treat to find a popular song with more than four or five different chords in it.
Lennon wa sbetter than McCartney at writing lyrics that hit a note, but most of his music writing is pretty basic.
He was a junkie, repeatedly unfaithful, occasionally violent and a poor father, but I don't know if that makes him evil enough to be pope...
But McCartney was better at writing songs that people liked. It does annoy me that people say how great Lennon was, yet its obvious which songs were his, and which were Pauls (who sang it was usually a giveaway, especially on later songs).
Paul wrote the more popular stuff, John wrote the weirder stuff. Pretty much a reflection of their solo careers as well, with Paul having far more singles chart friendly songs!
But once again, who cares what he was like in real life? And whos to say its all 100% true anyway?
The article said that he wanted to fuck his mother but was unable to do so because she died before he got the chance.
So he wanted to be a motherfucker but failed at doing so.
How is the title inaccurate?
It's a pretty accurate way to summarize a moronic article. It's an example of the lowest form of journalism. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you'd want to associate yourself with something like that.
But McCartney was better at writing songs that people liked. It does annoy me that people say how great Lennon was, yet its obvious which songs were his, and which were Pauls (who sang it was usually a giveaway, especially on later songs).
Paul wrote the more popular stuff, John wrote the weirder stuff. Pretty much a reflection of their solo careers as well, with Paul having far more singles chart friendly songs!
On the other hand, though Paul continued writing brilliant pop songs (no live person can compose better melodies, in my opinion), his albums simply weren't as good as The Beatles without the "weird stuff". Probably the most groundbreaking thing they ever did was "A Day in the Life", which was a Lennon-driven number in a Paul-conceived album.
So you admit that it's accurate, you just don't like the fact that it said something you don't want to hear.
Look, Mxy, the fact that John Lennon was a creep in real life doesn't mean that you have to stop listening to his records. You can stop crying about how "unfair" the press was by reporting something negative about him.
The question is, where is the evidence he said this? Is it written somewhere by Lennon himself, or in a video or audio interview? Or maybe its just some shit that someone else said, and that must make it a fact. Maybe it was on Wikipedia, then it must be true!
So you admit that it's accurate, you just don't like the fact that it said something you don't want to hear.
So if I write an article that says you fuck children and title it "(your name here): Kid-fucker", I guess all's right with the world because, well, it's an accurate description of the article, isn't? I could even interview people who actually know you, throw away whatever they say, and mention that I had their collaboration in my investigation of your child-fucking tendencies.
Quote:
You can stop crying about how "unfair" the press was by reporting something negative about him.
There's a difference between reporting something negative about a person and reporting a book that says something negative about a person. This is your typical "someone says" article: the papers get a free chance to have a nasty eye-grabbing headline without any of the responsibility, because they're simply reporting what another person said.
The question is, where is the evidence he said this?
According to the original article, Lennon told Yoko who told the reporter during an intereview for the book.
I suppose it's possible that the reporter fabricated the Ono quote but given her propensity for litigation, unless we see a lawsuit shortly, I would suspect that he didn't.
I also suppose it's possible that Ono fabricated the conversation with John for the reporter. However, given that much of her income and lifestyle derive directly from continuing to promote the legend of Lennon in a positive light, that also seems unlikely.
If this was a allegation based on unnamed sources or ex-friends I would agree that the credibility was very questionable. However, when it comes right from Yoko Ono herself, bitch that she might be, it's hard to claim that the story's fabricated.
According to the original article, Lennon told Yoko who told the reporter during an intereview for the book.
No, the article says Lennon told Yoko. It doesn't say that Yoko told the reported. It says the reporter talked to Yoko, sure. But it never claims that she confirmed any of the negative stuff. Someone who knows or knew Yoko could have told the guy.
Quote:
I also suppose it's possible that Ono fabricated the conversation with John for the reporter. However, given that much of her income and lifestyle derive directly from continuing to promote the legend of Lennon in a positive light, that also seems unlikely.
No, her wealth comes form keeping Lennon relevant, period. Nothing does that like a good controversy.
But McCartney was better at writing songs that people liked. It does annoy me that people say how great Lennon was, yet its obvious which songs were his, and which were Pauls (who sang it was usually a giveaway, especially on later songs).
Paul wrote the more popular stuff, John wrote the weirder stuff. Pretty much a reflection of their solo careers as well, with Paul having far more singles chart friendly songs!
On the other hand, though Paul continued writing brilliant pop songs (no live person can compose better melodies, in my opinion), his albums simply weren't as good as The Beatles without the "weird stuff". Probably the most groundbreaking thing they ever did was "A Day in the Life", which was a Lennon-driven number in a Paul-conceived album.
I dont think any of their solo albums was as good as the Beatles as a whole. Some of my favourite Beatles songs are actually the Harrison ones. (I dont think anyone would admit to liking anything by Ringo, solo or with the band).
Like Harrison, Lennon for me wrote some awesome songs, but he also wrote a hell of a lot of stuff that I just could not get into.
I can listen to, and enjoy, far more McCartney solo stuff (up til the early/mid 80s) than I can enjoy solo Lennon or Harrison stuff.
Harrison and Lennon were probably a lot better "artists" than McCartney, but McCartney definetly was more in tune with what would sell.
If you was to equate it to artists, Lennon and Harrison would be the likes of Van Gogh and DaVinci, where as McCartney would be more like a George Perez or Brian Bolland. Both styles have their merits, but they will appeal to different groups of people.
This is not to disrespect Lennon, its more a case for the fact that it annoys me that McCartney is often overlooked as being just as creative and talented, but in a different way. I think its considered hip to like Lennon, but totally uncool to like McCartney!
According to the original article, Lennon told Yoko who told the reporter during an intereview for the book.
No, the article says Lennon told Yoko. It doesn't say that Yoko told the reported. It says the reporter talked to Yoko, sure. But it never claims that she confirmed any of the negative stuff. Someone who knows or knew Yoko could have told the guy.
Quote:
I also suppose it's possible that Ono fabricated the conversation with John for the reporter. However, given that much of her income and lifestyle derive directly from continuing to promote the legend of Lennon in a positive light, that also seems unlikely.
No, her wealth comes form keeping Lennon relevant, period. Nothing does that like a good controversy.
I'm going to chalk your complete inability to understand what that article said to the fact that English isn't your first language, instead of accusing you of disingenuous spin to protect a singer you admire, and simply once again urge you to not let Lennon's creepy mother lust prevent you from enjoying his music.
Hell, if you it makes you feel better, tell yourself that Lennon probably forgot to mention to Ono that he was hoping to research a book.
I'm also going to chalk your complete inability to understand what that article said to the fact that English isn't your first language either. You speak Gaelic or whatever they call that Austin Powers dialect.
I also understand that, given your culture's pending destruction, you're desperate to hang on to the good rep of a celebrity from your home nation.
I dont think any of their solo albums was as good as the Beatles as a whole. Some of my favourite Beatles songs are actually the Harrison ones. (I dont think anyone would admit to liking anything by Ringo, solo or with the band).
Like Harrison, Lennon for me wrote some awesome songs, but he also wrote a hell of a lot of stuff that I just could not get into.
I can listen to, and enjoy, far more McCartney solo stuff (up til the early/mid 80s) than I can enjoy solo Lennon or Harrison stuff.
Harrison and Lennon were probably a lot better "artists" than McCartney, but McCartney definetly was more in tune with what would sell.
If you was to equate it to artists, Lennon and Harrison would be the likes of Van Gogh and DaVinci, where as McCartney would be more like a George Perez or Brian Bolland. Both styles have their merits, but they will appeal to different groups of people.
This is not to disrespect Lennon, its more a case for the fact that it annoys me that McCartney is often overlooked as being just as creative and talented, but in a different way. I think its considered hip to like Lennon, but totally uncool to like McCartney!
Me, I got into the Beatles through Lennon's stuff, and only then started appreciating McCartney's stuff (which at first I thought was much too cheesy). I think their common ground was the hard-rocking stuff, like Revolution or Oh Darling.
I think Lennon and Harrison have a couple of really good solo albums, but most of it is boring shit. In Lennon's case, that's mostly due to Yoko's annoying "songs". If you take all the Lennon numbers in Double Fantasy and Milk & Honey, you get a pretty decent album. And, well, I actually like some of Ringo's early cover albums. They're like the complete opposite of Lennon's worst albums: completely unpretentious, easy-going pop-rock numbers.
McCartney, on the other hand, has like 10 or so great albums. Even a couple of the recent ones are good. I think once they're all long dead people are gonna start appreciating the extent of his contribution to rock and pop.
I'm going to chalk your complete inability to understand what that article said to the fact that English isn't your first language, instead of accusing you of disingenuous spin to protect a singer you admire, and simply once again urge you to not let Lennon's creepy mother lust prevent you from enjoying his music.
Well, I'm gonna chalk up your inability to separate reality from cheap fabrications worthy of a tabloid to the fact that you're a fucking idiot. Everyone here knows that you lost this argument as soon as it started and now you're just grasping for life. Keep reaching, grandpa. I'm sure these kind of stunts work like a charm when you're photocopying parking tickets down there in traffic court (what better place for such a wonderfully talented lawyer to display his unbelievable skill!).
Show of hands, people: who here thinks G-man is right?
I'm also going to chalk your complete inability to understand what that article said to the fact that English isn't your first language either. You speak Gaelic or whatever they call that Austin Powers dialect.
I also understand that, given your culture's pending destruction, you're desperate to hang on to the good rep of a celebrity from your home nation.
So, don't worry, Nowie. I feel your pain.
1) The language is called English, so sorry your country couldnt afford its own. 2) My countries destruction? I'm sorry, who's economy is fucked exactly? And who's country is about to be run by a muslim? Oh yeah, that'd be yours! Praise Allah!
I dont think any of their solo albums was as good as the Beatles as a whole. Some of my favourite Beatles songs are actually the Harrison ones. (I dont think anyone would admit to liking anything by Ringo, solo or with the band).
Like Harrison, Lennon for me wrote some awesome songs, but he also wrote a hell of a lot of stuff that I just could not get into.
I can listen to, and enjoy, far more McCartney solo stuff (up til the early/mid 80s) than I can enjoy solo Lennon or Harrison stuff.
Harrison and Lennon were probably a lot better "artists" than McCartney, but McCartney definetly was more in tune with what would sell.
If you was to equate it to artists, Lennon and Harrison would be the likes of Van Gogh and DaVinci, where as McCartney would be more like a George Perez or Brian Bolland. Both styles have their merits, but they will appeal to different groups of people.
This is not to disrespect Lennon, its more a case for the fact that it annoys me that McCartney is often overlooked as being just as creative and talented, but in a different way. I think its considered hip to like Lennon, but totally uncool to like McCartney!
Me, I got into the Beatles through Lennon's stuff, and only then started appreciating McCartney's stuff (which at first I thought was much too cheesy). I think their common ground was the hard-rocking stuff, like Revolution or Oh Darling.
I think Lennon and Harrison have a couple of really good solo albums, but most of it is boring shit. In Lennon's case, that's mostly due to Yoko's annoying "songs". If you take all the Lennon numbers in Double Fantasy and Milk & Honey, you get a pretty decent album. And, well, I actually like some of Ringo's early cover albums. They're like the complete opposite of Lennon's worst albums: completely unpretentious, easy-going pop-rock numbers.
McCartney, on the other hand, has like 10 or so great albums. Even a couple of the recent ones are good. I think once they're all long dead people are gonna start appreciating the extent of his contribution to rock and pop.
With the exception of you liking Ringos stuff, we are pretty much in agreement on most of it.
Silly Mxy and Nowie. Everyone knows that you can't see a show of hands over the internet. If you guess weren't stuck in third world countries using backward technology you might know that.
But hey, you keep clinging to the illusion that the article is fabricated or that Ono made the story up or whatever it is you think you need.
After all, as the wannabe motherfucker himself sang, "whatever gets you through the night."
So, your entire argument relies on nothing but hypotheticals and assumptions that either the reporter or Lennon's widow lied.
Wow.
Serious question: what kind of shrine to you have to Lennon in your hut? Does it involve candles or just a lot of photos taped to a mirror? Do you sacrifice chickens to his ghost or just clutch a rosary made of old guitar picks when you pray?
I ask because, between your wild guesses on what "really" happened and your belief that Lennon's more respected than the Pope, that's one hell of a religious devotion you got going there.
Geez, you two are really hurt upset about this, aren't you? I mean, to the point of acting as if I insulted your parents or something.
Now you're actually promoting a near-conspiracy theory that Yoko Ono and a reporter made the whole thing up to sell records....as if allegations of incestous desires makes an artist more popular.
I really think you should not put this much faith and emotion into dead celebrity worship. It's kinda reminiscient of those fat old ladies who go and sob at the gates of Graceland every August.
So, your entire argument relies on nothing but hypotheticals and assumptions that either the reporter or Lennon's widow lied.
Lennon wanting to fuck his mother isn't a hypothetical situation to you? You know this for a fact? What, did you see him at a meeting or something?
Assuming Yoko Ono is capable of lying is unrealistic? Assuming a journalist is capable of fabricating something nasty about a celebrity to sell books is unrealistic? You're the one who's supporting his entire stance on nothing but unlikely scenarios.
Quote:
Serious question: what kind of shrine to you have to Lennon in your hut? Does it involve candles or just a lot of photos taped to a mirror? Do you sacrifice chickens to his ghost or just clutch a rosary made of old guitar picks when you pray?
Well, since it's a serious question I guess I should answer honestly. I don't really have a Lennon shrine, sorry. I don't even own any of his albums, much less photos. I've never killed an animal in my life or owned any rosaries: I may live in a third world country, but I'm not THAT primitive! Come on. Also, I don't live in a hut; my house is probably bigger than yours (and I don't say that with pride). Odds are you're completely ignorant about anything that exists outside the US (and I'm sure you know that isn't a joke), so I guess it's necessary to clarify all this.
Quote:
I ask because, between your wild guesses on what "really" happened
In what reality is a man not wanting to fuck his mother a "wild guess"? Again: are you sure you don't have any issues of your own, G? Did you by any chance get erections when your mom breastfed you at age 12? (That last part is a fabrication, by the way. Don't you go and take it seriously: you may actually believe it and kill yourself!)
Quote:
and your belief that Lennon's more respected than the Pope, that's one hell of a religious devotion you got going there.
What's the big deal with the Pope? Do people still respect the guy? The new guy?I don't keep up with that sort of thing, but I thought his popularity took a huge dive after all those priests started G-maning children.
I think once they're all long dead people are gonna start appreciating the extent of his contribution to rock and pop.
that's just it -- lennon has the distinct advantage of having died. even more so of having died relatively early into, what could have been, a 50+ year career. thus, all of his accomplishments are glorified, coupled with that "what could have been" factor.
they were both clearly brilliant at what they did best. at this point, though, i can't see how paul could outrank john, when john's career so heavily outweighs pretty much everyone in the industry's history
Now you're actually promoting a near-conspiracy theory that Yoko Ono and a reporter made the whole thing up to sell records....as if allegations of incestous desires makes an artist more popular.
No, but they keep him relevant. Proof: you posted that article. Most people are intelligent enough to know that it isn't true, but that doesn't stop it from making a juicy story.
You may concentrate on that last reply if you don't feel up to debating the points in my previous post, by the way, G. I don't want to cause a spike in your blood pressure or anything.
So, Mxy, every time you read a newspaper article you assume that everyone cited in the story and/or the reporter is lying? Because that assumption is exactly what your argument hinges on in this particular case.
If I read a newspaper article that claims a celebrity wanted to fuck his mother, yes, I assume it's not true. If I see a reference to a shocking new tell-all book that will disclose outrageous never heard before facts about a dead celebrity, yes, I'll assume it's full of shit. Same goes for anything Yoko Ono does in general.
YOUR argument hinges on the honesty of journalists, celebrity book authors, and Yoko Fucking Ono. I don't know why I even have to explain why you're on the losing side here.
Hey, haven't you complained about the media being dishonest about something or other in the past...? I guess that only applies to articles that publish stuff you disagree with. Such as the shocking exposé in which it's revealed that Paul Stanley from Kiss has never fucked any of his parents. What kind of sick man is that?!
Its amazing that Gay-Man thinks we are reacting to this like someone insulted our parents, yet he has resorted to cliched nationality insults to try to bolster his argument. Sounds like the workings of a mind that knows its in the wrong, but just cant admit it, so it reverts to being a 12 year old again.
It's already been established that, to G-Freud here, wanting to fuck one's mother is an everyday thing. I guess he thinks we're overreacting simply because we're not getting aroused by the idea.
I keep hearing mention that mccartney's stuff is more commercially viable, whereas lennon's lyrics and what not made him the superior artist. it's the same age-old trade-off that faces most musicians. if your 'message' is really that important to you, you can stick with it and insist on doing your own thing regardless of what everyone else is doing or what the masses want to listen to. or you can, essentially, shut up and play, and while you're probably compromising a little from a perspective of pure artistry, you'll be making bank doing it. everyone has different views on how socially conscious a committed artist ought to be, how vociferous they should be when presenting and defending their convictions, and so on. even if your works don't have a single solitary singing or speaking voice in them, you can start a full-scale riot if you play your cards right - or wrong, depending on how you look at it. it's happened plenty of times in the past.
[quote=Im Not Mister Mxyzptlk] they were both clearly brilliant at what they did best. at this point, though, i can't see how paul could outrank john, when john's career so heavily outweighs pretty much everyone in the industry's history
Really???? What outside of the Beatles did Lennon dot hat was so great? Imagine is massively remembered, but I have to say that even as a whiny liberal I find it hippy bullshit! ("Imagine no possessions", probably a bit easier for us than you John-boy!)
Is Johns career really that great? No doubt he is fondly remembered by many. But when you think of musical icons, you think of Elvis, Johnny Cash, The Beatles(which John was a part of of course), but as a solo guy I don't think most people consider him great.
Out of curiosity, what do you do when you're in court and you can't post a Youtube video in the place of an argument? Do you just start singing or what?
[quote=Im Not Mister Mxyzptlk] they were both clearly brilliant at what they did best. at this point, though, i can't see how paul could outrank john, when john's career so heavily outweighs pretty much everyone in the industry's history
Really???? What outside of the Beatles did Lennon dot hat was so great? Imagine is massively remembered, but I have to say that even as a whiny liberal I find it hippy bullshit! ("Imagine no possessions", probably a bit easier for us than you John-boy!)
actually, you're right. i confused the brits in my post. i meant paul's career (he's the alive one, right???) outweighs john's, as well as most of the industry, cuz it's been decade after decade of success and one-legged women.
Out of curiosity, what do you do when you're in court and you can't post a Youtube video in the place of an argument? Do you just start singing or what?
Didn't you ever see "Cop Rock"? The traffic court lawyer on that show was based on me.
Ultimate Jaburg53 cool Moderator Asshole Extraordinaire 15000+ posts Wed Oct 15 2008 11:55 PM Reading a post Forum: Media Thread: Remembering John Lennon.
Ultimate Jaburg53 cool Moderator Asshole Extraordinaire 15000+ posts Wed Oct 15 2008 11:59 PM Reading a post Forum: Media Thread: Remembering John Lennon.
Pariah nerdy Moderator Triteness kicks us in the nads. 15000+ posts Thu Oct 16 2008 12:28 AM Reading a post Forum: Media Thread: Remembering John Lennon.
Is Johns career really that great? No doubt he is fondly remembered by many. But when you think of musical icons, you think of Elvis, Johnny Cash, The Beatles(which John was a part of of course), but as a solo guy I don't think most people consider him great.
I think you'll find the worst people who hold Lennon up as an icon, are fellow musicians.
To be honest though, as much as I like him, I dont believe Cash is considered that much of a legend outside the USA.
Lennon is in that category of musicians who died (relatively) young, so it automatically makes them more hip and trendy to worship.
Regardless of their talent, guys like Lennon, Marley, Hendrix, Morrison & Cobain etc, probably gained more of an iconic status & hero worship after they died.
In some cases its justified, in others not so.
Lennon in my opinion, was overrated, but thats probably because I prefer the more commercial music of McCartney, but everyone is different I guess!
To be honest though, as much as I like him, I dont believe Cash is considered that much of a legend outside the USA.
True.
That said, of all the country guys, he is probably considered the most credible and least embarassing one to like by most non-Americans (followed by Willie Nelson). The least "redneck" if you will!
Lennon reminds me of James Dean and Marilyn Monroe. Their early, tragic deaths have given them a status above what they would have if they had lived longer lives. I will admit that Lennon had more talent than the other two, but the point remains. Dean only has three films to his name, yet he is a 'legend'. Had he died of a heart attack at age 60, you'd probably never hear of him.
I don't know if I'd say Lennon had more talent than Dean, though it's obviously comparing apples to oranges. From what I've seen Dean was really a great actor.
Just another reason why we're the greatest nation on earth is all.
Shut the fuck up you retard!
Somebody's still a little sensitive over the fall of the British empire I see.
Yeah, cause I was really around back in those days wasnt I you fucking twat. Not all of us are ancient cunts living in the past like you. Now why cant you die like a good fossil?
So you're like those "Sons of the Civil War" we have over here in the United States, um, excuse me, colonies? Glorifying an era you didn't actually live through?
Lennon reminds me of James Dean and Marilyn Monroe. Their early, tragic deaths have given them a status above what they would have if they had lived longer lives. I will admit that Lennon had more talent than the other two, but the point remains. Dean only has three films to his name, yet he is a 'legend'. Had he died of a heart attack at age 60, you'd probably never hear of him.
Hear of who?
By the way, I've read that Marilyn Monroe had six toes on each foot. Is that an added bonus for foot fetishists, or are they repulsed by such a mutation?
I do also want to remind everybody that not only is Billy Idol much more musically talented than both Lennon and McCartney put together, he is also much better looking, and could beat them in a fight.
Ultimate Jaburg53 cool Moderator Asshole Extraordinaire 15000+ posts Fri Oct 17 2008 02:17 PM Reading a post Forum: Media Thread: Remembering John Lennon.
So you're like those "Sons of the Civil War" we have over here in the United States, um, excuse me, colonies? Glorifying an era you didn't actually live through?
Now thats funny, cause there was me thinking I have never mentioned it ever. Fuck man, I knew you was old, but losing your memory and seeing things seems to be the first signs of senility in you, you sad pathetic old cunt!
I do also want to remind everybody that not only is Billy Idol much more musically talented than both Lennon and McCartney put together, he is also much better looking, and could beat them in a fight.
I do also want to remind everybody that not only is Billy Idol much more musically talented than both Lennon and McCartney put together, he is also much better looking, and could beat them in a fight.
A never publicly heard outtake recording of a very intoxicated John Lennon singing a debauched version of Lloyd Price's "Just Because" in 1973 is hitting the auction block today in Los Angeles.
Estimated to bring in $30,000 to $40,000, the six-minute-long recording dates to the period when Lennon separated from Yoko Ono for a time to live with May Pang - a period he later referred to as his "Lost Weekend," according to auction house Bonham's.
The session was recorded in LA, where Lennon had gone to work on a record with producer Phil Spector.
The tape begins with a slurring Lennon, warbling: "I wanna take all them new singers, Carol and the other one with the nipples, I wanna take 'em and hold 'em tight, all them people that James Taylor had . . . I wanna suck your nipples, baby!"
He later murmurs, "Just a little cocaine will set me right."
The backing band speeds up and slows down to try to keep up with Lennon, but a male voice is then heard calling the session to a close.
The Spector session later fizzled because of Lennon's drunken behavior.
"Although Lennon is intoxicated, because it's John Lennon singing, it still sounds decent," reads the description in Bonham's auction catalogue.
Lennon's "Lost Weekend" lasted for a year and a half. He and Ono reconciled and got back together in early 1975. Nine months later, they had a son, Sean.
Lennon later re-recorded "Just Because" and released it on his 1975 album, "Rock 'n' Roll."
How fucked up do you have to be to get sent home by Phil Spector?
A John Lennon fan who scrawled "LOVE" on his hero's Central Park memorial probably didn't imagine he'd be arrested.
Michael Philippas, 51, was charged with making graffiti after he took out a black marker and wrote the word across the circular monument, in a section of the park called Strawberry Fields, at 11:45 a.m. Tuesday, cops said.
He was spotted by a Parks Department worker and arrested.
Philippas was released on his own recognizance.
The memorial has been repeatedly vandalized by fans wanting to show their respect for the musician.
I'm obviously not one of those people who worships Lennon, but it amazes me how anyone would think vandalizing their hero's memorial is "showing respect."
John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.
Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.
In new documentary Beatles Stories, Seaman tells filmmaker Seth Swirsky Lennon wasn't the peace-loving militant fans thought he was while he was his assistant.
He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.
Heh. It's as if millions of hippie voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
I may have to rethink my "favorite Beatle" selection.
G-shill and crooks...they go together like bread and butter.
Quote:
A former personal assistant to John Lennon who was accused of stealing hundreds of the late Beatle's personal photographs and letters, issued an apology to his widow, Yoko Ono, in a Manhattan courtroom yesterday.
"I offer no excuses for my conduct, and ask only that you can find it in your heart to forgive me," Frederick Seaman, 49, said in a statement issued as part of a settlement in a case which offered an unprecedented glimpse into Lennon's domestic habits, his falling-out with Paul McCartney, and the insomnia and fear of stalkers which dominated the last months of his life.
"I now realise how much pain and embarrassment I have caused," said Mr Seaman, admitting that he had violated a confidentiality agreement. He agreed to return and surrender the rights to 374 photographs he took of the family as part of his job, to refund $75,000 (£50,000) from selling Lennon's letters, and to pay undisclosed damages.
Confidentiality, Ms Ono told the court, had been crucial to the couple, who lived in New York and feared for the safety of their newborn son.
Also among the stolen documents was the draft of a letter from Lennon to Paul and Linda McCartney in which he condemns the couple for blaming the break-up of the Beatles on his involvement with Ms Ono. "I hope you realise what shit you and the rest of my kind and unselfish friends laid on Yoko and me since we have been together," he wrote.
Ms Ono told the court: "John was a person. He was not just an artist, but a family man."
He was also a demanding employer, judging from the notes Lennon left for Mr Seaman, ordering him to carry out household chores. "Trade in fishy cat food tins for meaty ones," he instructs him.
Another enlisted Mr Seaman's help in getting Ms Ono to have her teeth checked: "Remind YO her teeth will be needed in later life."
A fourth, about his boots, suggested he already distrusted Mr Seaman: "Have you sold them? or rented perhaps."
In another moment, Ms Ono was required to tell the court that Lennon, who was gunned down by a fan outside his apartment in 1980, was "a member of a band called the Beatles".
whomodJLA, I am very, very, disappointed in your implication that, just because Lennon was a closet republican, he deserved to have his property stolen.
Rob's Board is a stinking cosmic sewer! I have fouled the Media X board beyond repair and broken in the mire the shining cities of Rob! I have lost! Is this vanity? Then I will remake the entire thread in the image of G. Gordon Liddy, Paul. And when at last I turn to look upon the eternal desolation I have wrought...I will see The G-shill, as in a mirror....and know what senility is.
This is just arrogance on Obama's part, not providing his birth certificate as demanded.
Why? I can't think of a single U.S. president who's had his birth certificate "demanded" of him before this.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
As I mentioned once or twice before, I never really doubted Obama was a natural born citizen because of the fact his mother was a citizen.
Not sure why I was quoted here, or what it has to do with John Lennon's death. But Obama is the first candidate / elected-president to not disclose his proof of birth, and until he did, it was a valid question.
Now that Obama finally (3 years later, after a political push by Donald Trump caused Obama to significantly drop in the polls) has disclosed full evidence of his U.S. citizenship, that's good enough for me.
On the topic of Lennon's death and legacy, I'm torn because I like his music, with the Beatles and his solo work.
But I also regard him as the quintissential hippie scumbag hypocrite prick marxist. He scorned materialism and the accumulation of wealth, and yet he had an enormous fortune and did little to help the suffering of the poor who he postured over. One article I read said beyond his material possesions, he had an enormous porn collection.
Like so many other hippie scumbag celebrities, he liked to posture about how "the rich" should give much more to the poor, while clinging to his own fortune.
Lennon was also horrible to his first wife, constantly torturing her with the knowledge of thousands of other women he slept with, before he finally completely abandoned her and their shared children.
He was a guy with good and bad attributes, and a legacy of very pleasant music. But I look with scorn at those who hold him up as some great principled visionary, raised to a pedestal on par with Jesus Christ. On a par with Charlie Sheen is more like it.
