Music Banter
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   General Music (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/)
-   -   Accepting that John Lennon was a douchebag is much like accepting death (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/33483-accepting-john-lennon-douchebag-much-like-accepting-death.html)

sleepy jack 10-04-2008 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Monkey (Post 527429)
Yeah, but John and Paul were douchebags, but John was by far the biggest. At least Paul didn't abandon his son at the age of five and ignored him for the next 12 years. The only reason Paul gets so much more crap is because everyone starts to admire a person as soon as they're murdered. Just look at JFK.
lol. The reason John gets more admired than Paul is because John had a solid solo career and Paul McCartney is doing this: YouTube - Official Ever Present Past Video

Molecules 10-04-2008 03:36 PM
Solid solo career? Both were for the most part god-awful (their early 70's output was fine) but John did his ****ty rock n' roll covers album and some other crap i'd like to try and forget; Macca had obscene success at the time with Wings. Wings were ****, but at least Paul made Ram and Band on the Run, which alone is enough to par John's entire output. IMO.

Molecules 10-04-2008 03:38 PM
oh and if we're posting ex-beatles' wrist-cuttingly bad MOR bull**** you have not lived until you've seen this debacle: YouTube - Ringo Starr - Liverpool 8 (Official Music Video)

richard starkey, you are a royal prick

lucifer_sam 10-04-2008 06:54 PM
i oloed.

But I knew this a LONG time ago. He bitched consistently while he was with the Beatles that he could never get enough creative control. And WHAT did he write about in his solo career? ABOUT BEING IN THE BEATLES AND NOT GETTING ENOUGH CREATIVE FUCKING CONTROL.

sleepy jack 10-04-2008 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molecules (Post 527548)
Solid solo career? Both were for the most part god-awful (their early 70's output was fine) but John did his ****ty rock n' roll covers album and some other crap i'd like to try and forget; Macca had obscene success at the time with Wings. Wings were ****, but at least Paul made Ram and Band on the Run, which alone is enough to par John's entire output. IMO.
Replace solid with more iconic. If Paul had written lines like imagine there's no heaven, give peace a chance and woman is the ****** of the world everyone would probably be idolizing a different Beatle. It really has nothing to do with who got murdered, it attributed to John's icon status sure but it didn't create it. If Paul had been shot he wouldn't be placed on the same pedestal as John because he just didn't have the same career post-beatles.

FireInCairo 10-04-2008 10:25 PM
I completely disagree
Violent death mythologises almost any celebrity, and their profiles were probably at a similar height.
and really both those songs are trite rubbish.

lucifer_sam 10-04-2008 10:28 PM
Yeah, if John wasn't murdered people would have just talked about "that Lennon prick" and not "that Lennon genius." I still think he was the most interesting member, if not the most creative. Guess I'm a sap too.

Fyrenza 10-04-2008 11:10 PM
i've had to give up trying to 'know' these bands/artists because it seems like every time they talk about anything
i end up disagreeing with them and/or not really liking them as people

the two biggies that got ruined for me were Isaac Asimov and Grace Slick
but there have been plenty of others

i guess that makes me an anti-fan
someone who DOESN'T want to know every little thing about them

w/e

lucifer_sam 10-04-2008 11:14 PM
Isaac Asimov? He made music?

Fyrenza 10-04-2008 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucifer_sam (Post 527671)
Isaac Asimov? He made music?
:rofl: No :rofl:

but he was one of my heroes for many years


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:52 AM.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.