John Lennon

[Mackenzie]

Paul divorced Heather seven years ago.

It was quite a few years ago, maybe 10-12......time goes so quickly these days.

 

[Leyton Gull]

It was quite a few years ago.

I thought it was fairly well known he had a pad on Hove seafront not far from the King Alfred.

 

[Mackenzie]

I thought it was fairly well known he had a pad on Hove seafront not far from the King Alfred.

That would be it then. She was pretty good on her skates all things considered.

 

[KZNSeagull]

It's funny how some people slag off Paul McCartney - he is hugely respected in the music industry to this day. I read a very interesting article about Youth from Killing Joke working with him a few years ago (a rather unlikely partnership you would think) plus there was a documentary with Dave Grohl where he also worked with him (he said he was drumming away in this studio getting into the music, when he looked up and suddenly realised that he here was playing with a living legend). His music may be lame to my ears, but I cannot deny that he is still a music legend, one that the Brits should be proud of. It would have been the same with Lennon were he still here.

 

[Half Time Pies]

They were one of numerous very talented bands who achieved God like status with the aid of the media.

and...the most successful and influential of all of them.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The Beatles were great, weren't they? And Lennon and McCartney were a fantastic partnership.

I'm not a fan of Lennon's solo stuff.

And reading this, it would seem that the man was more of a cad (a mild term of abuse got starred out) than is generally recognised: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/arti...lennon-beat-women-and-childrenits-just-a-fact

 

[Thunder Bolt]

My theory is that Paul has/had a voice that worked well in a studio but when he performs live it sounds very amateurish.

Having been to a gig where he sang for over two hours with just a mike, I can say he did not sound amateurish, in any sense.

 

[Spicy]

35 years of pretty mediocre drive time rubbish my guess. He was no soloist.

My comment was actually sarcastic but no one has picked that up.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

My comment was actually sarcastic but no one has picked that up.

I did. Your first word gave it away.

 

[Spicy]

it's easy if you try.

Nice one.

 

[Spicy]

I did. Your first word gave it away.

Well done Thunder, or should I call you Bolt?

 

[Leyton Gull]

Having been to a gig where he sang for over two hours with just a mike, I can say he did not sound amateurish, in any sense.

Amateurish is a bit strong. His studio recording voice can be majestic but given he is actually mortal, like the rest of us he wants to show us that he's a bit of a venue rocker. Not amateurish then, but there are many who are better at live rock vocals.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Ha, ha, this thread is hilarious...we do love to knock our own in Britain don't we!

I am sure that you can find a fault in almost every human being on the planet and therefore a reason to dislike them however there is no getting away from the fact that McCartney and Lennon are absolute musical legends. Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly an imbecile!

We should be very proud that they are/were British.

Absolutely spot on, to state anything to the contrary is just ridiculous.

Changed the face of music as we know it.
Wrote a lot of hit songs for other artists as well.

 

[wallyback]

(Apologies for changing the subject from John) I really enjoy most of those Wings Album, the pre Wings album, Ram (1971) is one of my all time favourites

Chaos and Creation in the Backyard is an awesome album - ably assisted by Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich

 

[Marxo]

For anyone interested here are some very interesting interviews (podcasts) used to make the film (American Masters LENNONYC).
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/lennonyc-beyond-broadcast-episode-1-jack-douglas/1623/

 

[BadFish]

I laugh when people quote the Frog Chorus in an attempt to put Paul down. The Beatles also wrote children's songs, Octopus' Garden and Yellow Submarine for example.
They were all talented musicians, and the sum of the whole exceeded the individual parts. I liked John but felt he lost his way when he met Yoko.

Where as he would tell you that when he met Yoko he very much found his way.

 

[BadFish]

Ha, ha, this thread is hilarious...we do love to knock our own in Britain don't we!

I am sure that you can find a fault in almost every human being on the planet and therefore a reason to dislike them however there is no getting away from the fact that McCartney and Lennon are absolute musical legends. Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly an imbecile!

We should be very proud that they are/were British.

Some people will always choose to focus on the negatives. There are many with most people but what John (and Paul) did means that their positives are quite quite amazing, if you care to acknowledge them.

 

[BadFish]

The Beatles were great, weren't they? And Lennon and McCartney were a fantastic partnership.

I'm not a fan of Lennon's solo stuff.

And reading this, it would seem that the man was more of a cad (a mild term of abuse got starred out) than is generally recognised: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/arti...lennon-beat-women-and-childrenits-just-a-fact

I stopped reading the article after the phrase 'whom he impregnated' (as if Cynthia had nothing to do with it). It is well known that John had a mean and unpleasant side to his character so i assume she has plenty of evidence for her hatchet job. Her turn of phrase suggests that he article is not going to be balanced in any way or seek to explain anything so i think i will give it a miss.

I eagerly await her next articles highlighting the darker side of peoples characters though. "Ghandi was passive aggressive" is a particular hit.

Edit: okay so i read it Actually not a bad piece although I don't think she achieved her aim of painting the monster that she appears to be aiming for. What she describes is a bloke with issues and pressures who acts out in a sometimes hideous way. I am not including hitting Julian for perceived bad table manners as given the context of the era this was not entirely uncommon. I would also suggest that if this is the example that she chooses first and goes into most detail about then she has not done her research terribly well. A better example of Johns violence would be his constant fights with Stu Sutcliffe and the (unconfirmed) suspicions that one of these fights led to his death. No-one is going to claim that Lennon was some kid of saint but I think her article could have been similar for many people around that era and if you consider how other rock stars behaved his misgivings pale into insignificance when compared to others.

As she alludes to in the article it is often noted that the things Lennon did in later life and the peace and love that he espoused were born of the anger and violence of his early life. Possibly to atone for his sins or as a coping method. The bottom line is that as with most great artists the bloke was ****ed up and ****ed up people do shitty things but they also do amazing things. To focus too heavily on either aspect does not give you the whole picture of a person. I Suppose many people focus too much on the great things that he did and the article attempts to bring some balance to the celebrations of his achievements. I don't think it really achieve that though. Perhaps if she had provided more evidence of his violence towards women then her argument would have been stronger.