Accepting that John Lennon was a douchebag is much like accepting death
 

LOL, I got a real kick out of this article. What do yuo guys think?


didntread.com/music/accepting-that-john-lennon-was-a-douchebag-is-much-like-the-five-stages-of-death.html

It's a pretty funny article but I've never met a Lennon fan (an actual Lennon fan, not someone who just runs around going GIVE PEACE A CHANCE) who isn't aware he was a douchebag.

Ive always found it rather easy to accept both.

Yeah, both 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.

JFK was a terrible musician.

John Lennon was a misogynistic, grumpy bastard who told people what they didn't want to hear and that's why I love him

I'm still in the denial stage.

but he wrote Sexy Sadie

so he pwns us all

with the 'wawa' indian backing vocals. hellz yeah. but even there he was sticking it to the Maharishi. Which frankly he probably deserved

so is lance armstrong, tiger woods, and most anyone else who is one of the best at what they do. i dont mean to say you cant be great at what you do and still be a good person; its just kinda hard not to be a son of a bitch when everyone wants to be you.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Isaac Asimov? He made music?

:rofl: No :rofl:

but he was one of my heroes for many years

That article was interesting. I'm not that familiar with the history of the Beatles, so I can not get involved in the debate. However I have noticed "younger" people wearing John Lennon Imagine t-shirts. I have never once seen any Paul t-shirts. I think that has alot to do with him not being dead and extremely mainstream.

yeah there's no arguing with the iconic thing. he one dead muthafudga. and he was the most interesting aswell, at least in the immediately post-/Beatles years. Macca - the housewives' choice©... Although has anybody ever actually sat through the 5863 choruses of 'Give Peace a chance'? if so shame on you

Good point. I am a Lennon fan... I wouldn't use "douchebag", but I'd definitely agree to the fact that he was naive & almost annoyingly indignant. Or thought he was. I love his "solo" (I put it in quotes because right now I'm listening to Well Well Well from the Plastic Ono Band and I dig it) stuff much more than his Beatles stuff (though I'm also a Beatles fan). Some beautiful songs came from naivety (sp?) and dreams, though. I'll be cliche and say Imagine. And War is Over If You Want It is my favorite Christmas song.

seriously people love it when they kick the bucket early. not to say janis joplin wasnt great, but she had what 2 albums? only pearl was even critically acclaimed.

i never got the whole Joplin thing either
other than that she died young from drugs, hung around the in crowd, and (errrr) Ahem! sang at/played their venues

though i know i'll get flamed
i'll say it

i thought she sucked

Nah man, I agree, fuck Janis Joplin. "Peice of my Heart" was the only good thing she ever did, everything else blew.


Id like to make the argument that artists' early deaths are excellent reasons for those who don't understand the hype around them to make excuses of why they are so popular.

Paul McCartney's solo work is fruitless, I hate it all. John Lennon, however, has more than an albums worth of good music. Take:

Instant Karma
Mother
Imagine

For starters. Name one Paul McCartney solo song that's better than those. Plus, without Lennon, I feel like the Beatles would have been somewhat of a cheesy 60's pop band rather than what they are remembered for these days.

That said, I still accept he's a douchebag, I just dig his tunes:)

Mother is often forgotten...but it is really classic. I like it 100 billion times more than give piece a chance.

But yeah, Lennon is a huge douche...but his mom and best friend died, and he had an overall ****ed up childhood cut him a little slack.

Yeah good point...at least he wasnt a pampered little bitch like Jagger and Richards.

I still like George Harrison more.

yeah same ^

I love you.

I read that JFK quote and almost went ape **** banana's but this was about the best response there could have been.

/sig'd

Yeah Harrison was the bomb. He's probably smoked more drugs than I will ever see.

It's a lot like Allen Ginsberg and most of the Beat generation...people heap accolades on those guys for being visionary geniuses and the like, and at the end of the day all most of them were, were drug-addicted wannabes with externally-fed delusions of grandeur. I don't mind John Lennon, but nobody is clean, ever -- none of your heroes are what you think they are.

:(

We know they're on drugs. We know more than you know you know. ;)


&... I love Janis Joplin. :(

I think Ian Anderson never did drugs. Seriously.

ain't that the truth?

but really who cares? It really does not matter if you're musical hero is a douchebag, they still make great tunes.
A friend of mine asked nick cave for an autograph, Nick told him to get ****ed, doesnt mean his music is suddenly crap

EXACTLY

We are looking to them for music

NOT life philosophy

You know?

THAT's what freaks me out about these 'stars' who think their opinion is better or more knowledgeable than the "average joe's"

but these flipping "average joe's" are just

man, how was that put?

about the nuggets dropping out of the something-or-others butt cheeks? :cool: