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?
Only if one of us actually posted said picture.
The horror...the horror...
Uschi said: I won't rape you, I'll just fuck you 'till it hurts and then not stop and you'll cry.
MisterJLA: RACKS so hard, he called Jim Rome "Chris Everett." In Him, all porn is possible. He is far above mentions in so-called "blogs." RACK him, lest ye be lost!
"I can't even brush my teeth without gagging!" - Tommy Tantillo: Wank & Cry, heckpuppy, and general laughingstock
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.
Not only that, Johnny Cash was not only honest and open about his flaws; but he made sure his biopic didn't gloss over them.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
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.
![[Linked Image from i6.photobucket.com]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/JoeMama13/RedSoxBanner05.png)
