DM's Beatles forums
Solo forums => John Lennon => Topic started by: on June 19, 2007, 01:49:33 PM
-
Interesting points by Kevin elsewhere. The Myth of John Lennon. But where and when did the majority of the earth started to look at John as some kind of God? Was it just the whole 'give peace a chance' thing? Why is he still regarded as the ultimate peaceful, most talented, most honest Beatle?
-
Interesting points by Kevin elsewhere. The Myth of John Lennon. But where and when did the majority of the earth started to look at John as some kind of God? Was it just the whole 'give peace a chance' thing? Why is he still regarded as the ultimate peaceful, most talented, most honest Beatle?
Before I get run out of town I will point out that I am not alone in thinking this, nor am I saying anything new.
-
because he just seemed to encompass it all... he was an international symbol of peace and love... he was just something bigger than rock'n'roll ...
-
Interesting points by Kevin elsewhere.
My, what an interesting statement to log in to find this morning! Could you summarize or point to the interesting points, unless you think this will cause Kevin to be run out of town. ;) Just started reading today; I'll poke around a bit further... :)
-
Oh you know, that John was some peace loving guy at one with himself and the universe, that he had some special insight, that he was of above average intelligence, a family man, that he wrote "deep" music while others wrote trivia....
I much prefer the drug abusing, chain smoking, paranoid, cynical, self obsessed, bisexual, witty, generous, sharp tongued, cruel master-songwriter* who stood naked on his roof and watched UFO's.
(*Though he hadn't written a decent song since 1972)
-
Oh you know, that John was some peace loving guy at one with himself and the universe, that he had some special insight, that he was of above average intelligence, a family man, that he wrote "deep" music while others wrote trivia....
I much prefer the drug abusing, chain smoking, paranoid, cynical, self obsessed, bisexual, witty, generous, sharp tongued, cruel master-songwriter* who stood naked on his roof and watched UFO's.
(*Though he hadn't written a decent song since 1972)
;D
I was wondering whether I should stay out of this one. Or shall I just let rip?
-
Well, considering the thread is titled "Why did John become a God?" - I'd say that's up to you! *where's that cowardly smiley when you need it?* ;D
-
;D
I wondering whether I should stay out of this one. Or shall I just let rip?
Don't you dare hang me out to dry.
(balloon)(blush1)(cat)(dance)(dazed)(clown1)(clap)(clap)(clap)(clap)
-
If someone hasn't said "there is no nobler pursuit than that of the truth" then they should have.
-
John would laugh at this because its ridicolus! :P
He was an amazing human being & very special but he was no god.
he said it in the Imagine movie, 'i'm just a guy who writes songs'!
:)
-
I think that Mrs Ono contributed a LOT to the image of John-God after his death. She keeps talking about John and peace and all that. She might have loved the guy so I can't really blame her for seeing only the good things of his life. But she keeps on talking like 'John would have loved this' as soon as it has something to do with love and peace. Fact is that John has been dead for 26 years now: she can't really know anymore what he would have loved. The world has changed.
-
John would laugh at this because its ridicolus! :P
He was an amazing human being & very special but he was no god.
he said it in the Imagine movie, 'i'm just a guy who writes songs'!
:)
The only thing that I can think of that would qualify Lennon for "amazing and special" was his dedication to the peace movement.
But, this was relatively shortlived (1969 to 1972) and he dropped it like a hot potato once the public expressed its disproval (or to put my cynical hat on, when it stopped bringing in the bucks.)
It was not effective (sitting in bed stoned for a week, posting acorns etc), and all their efforts seem to owe more to Yoko's Performance Art background than to John. He seems more a hanger-on than an instigator.
Nor was rock stars lending their fame to good causes unique. Dylan was doing it when John was still singing about holding girl's hands. And thousands of people were dropping out, getting stoned and dedicating their lives to peace. They just didn't have the good fortune to be Beatles.
-
Time to put my cynical hat on now. John was a relatively happy, though somewhat unfulfilled person until Yoko came by. Kudos to her for inspiring the man. Yoko, on the other hand was a relatively (by all accounts) fulfilled conceptual/performance artist without an audience. You can see how well this starts to fit together. Bandwagon arrives and Yoko duly throws herself on. There is a mutual advantage to all this. Fame for Yoko, credibility and fulfillment for John. Just as long as it lasts. John did the peace thing as long as it suited him, and when it started to affect his image/sales he dropped it like a stone. So see, I'm thinking he's more interested in sales than any do gooding. And when John was gone Yoko's career hardly went into overdrive did it?
The fact that some people look upon Lennon as some kind of God has everything to do with those 3 years (1969-1972) and the fact that he was murdered, than to any of his abilities as a musician. If Paul had been murdered (and he'd never done Mull Of Kintyre) people might well be saying the same thing about him.
-
Bobber has a great point. Yoko is all about image, always has been. John (and the other Beatles) certainly had an "image" at the beginning, but they delighted in puncturing it. "Yeah, we drink and smoke. Yeah, I've dated a fan-- what of it?" This honesty only added to their charm. Later, when the Beatles were breaking up, John in particular went after the Beatles' image with a sledge-hammer: "Look at us! We're flawed, faulty human beings!" Of course, it wasn't so charming then; everyone was too hurt to enjoy it. (And John did work out of this phase eventually.)
The only thing that I can think of that would qualify Lennon for "amazing and special" was his dedication to the peace movement.
He doesn't get any marks for drive, wit, and talent? :(
their efforts seem to owe more to Yoko's Performance Art background than to John. He seems more a hanger-on than an instigator.
I'd agree with this. John's friends were saying to themselves, "Whoa, where did this come from!" I think John really wanted some strong direction in his life at that time. The other Beatles were busy with their own concerns, so were not busy "activating" John. When they came together in the studio, there were those growing musical differences that put tension on what used to be their former binding aspect.
I'm not quite as cynical as BlueMeanie. I think John dropped the peace thing because it couldn't hold his attention, not because it didn't "sell". John always moved through phases: his "making it to the top phase" and his "Dylan phase" and his hippy phase and meditation phase and conceptual artist phase, and on to his "party animal, free at last!" phase and househusband phase so on.
Yoko, on the other hand was a relatively (by all accounts) fulfilled conceptual/performance artist without an audience.
Wow, this is an interesting sentence. I never thought of Yoko in this way before. I'm going to ponder. Thanks!
The fact that some people look upon Lennon as some kind of God has everything to do with those 3 years (1969-1972) and the fact that he was murdered, than to any of his abilities as a musician.
I'll grant you that his murder really focused people on his loss ("You don't know what you got til it's gone"), but was it really all about peace? I can't help thinking people were feeling tremendous gratitude for the Beatles music and how those good memories had been part of their growing-up period. But then, I don't really know about this group that "looks upon Lennon as some kind of God" so perhaps the 3 peace years bit is true for them.
-
i like John.... and ya he was greater than rock n roll and he was a symbol of peace... but i think that ppl may think he's a godb/c anytime you try to explain him you really can't... and i don't know if that's a good thing or not.... it's just he isso complex and intriuging ...definitely something "special" definitely about him.....
i for one think George should become more of a god than john but that is just me.... (yeah)
-
and ya he was greater than rock n roll
Now that is a bold statement!
-
Why is John considered a God?
Because he is dead.
-
Who is this God ? Is he/she the one who people kill in the name of .
DaveRam :-/
-
Mr Horse! You're thoughts please now you've got us started.
-
I deleted my post which was in response to Hariheads well thought (as usual) post.
I disown my statement therein (not the content but my words.)
-
i for one think George should become more of a god than john but that is just me.... (yeah)
;D i try to remind everyone that there are 4 beatles... not only john & paul... but sometimes i'm pretty happy that george didn't become this godlike figure than john became. if someone is interested in george they'll do research, read, listen ect... and will see how george was. but everyone knows about john and most people have this plain picture in their heads of the peace-loving-hippie. the one guy who always did good and changed the world and bla bla. and then you show them a picture of him without the round glasses and they don't even know who this guy is.
john is remembered but not in the way he was... people change the image... say "john would have loved..." make john lennon tributes for the poor kids in whereever.... and the result is a john-picutre the people made over the years. it has always been an image... but this one gets more and more away from reality. i love john so much, but i try to love a person-like image... not a god-like.
that's the way i'd like him to be remembered... as the person he was... not the image people want to see in him... and use this image for whatever reasons.
-
Interesting points by Kevin elsewhere. The Myth of John Lennon. But where and when did the majority of the earth started to look at John as some kind of God? Was it just the whole 'give peace a chance' thing? Why is he still regarded as the ultimate peaceful, most talented, most honest Beatle?
Because alot of people do not understand what they are saying.
-
Once again may I say how splendid it is to have such conversations with you good people, and all in such good cheer.
I would like to raise a glass to the late Mr Lennon - one of the most gifted rock and rollers* to have walked this earth. I do not forget that.
* I think from here on in I shall copy the Greek Style and adopt a Pantheon of Greats, all equal. Lennon, Macca, Dylan, Marley, Elvis. Maybe some more.
-
Ooh, I just went to my happy place! :)
*blows a kiss to DM's Forums*
-
Mr Horse! You're thoughts please now you've got us started.
Yeah right, I'm not too sure about it. That's why I started this discussion, just to filter what I feel might be close to the truth. It is a fact that Yoko has given us a lot of the peaceloving John, whereas it might be closer to the truth that he wasn't into peace that much really. I bet up to 1969, he probably never even thought about it that much and didn't seem to care much after 1972. He wasn't very peaceful before and after, when the infamous lost weekend started. It is certainly not that his whole life was dedicated to peace, like Yoko want us to believe. His cruel death and young age to die at might have given fuel to the fire. But of course it is ridiculous to say that John Lennon was bigger than rock and roll. That is somehow saying he was a god after all. Talented, moody, yes.
-
i agree with komakino.... there were [size=18]4 [/size] beatles... not just John.... and ya... ppl potray him as "larger than rock n roll" and do i agree with that... not 100%... b/c of the way ppl slap an image on him... they forget of his past throughout the 60's and just go for "John protester of war, peace lover, granny glasses inthusiest,, i love yoko,throw away my past Lennon" that's basically how the media portrayed him in the 70's....ya know ...
i mean he was to young, it was a big shame the way he went, because i mean i do like john but you can't forget some of the "other" things he did in the past.....
you can't just say well the john most ppl know and recognize is a god... oh just forget about the other john.... that one isn't a big deal...
and as far as i know... I liked john better in the 60's pre yoko and all that 70's stuff....
and i was just kidding about the george god thing.... i agree with you komakino.... i'm glad george stayed clear of the public as best he can after the break up of the beatles.... b/c of that he was George... plain ole George... he was himself... and i respect him more than any other beatle....
weffee that's a lot of writing... but i can't some up everything i think of john in one little thread.... lol
-
Well, Mr Kevin? Anything to add?
-
Well, Mr Kevin? Anything to add?
No. I've pretty much said everything I have to say.
Very enjoyable though. Don't know about you, but there's no where else I could go and discuss something like this with likeminded and Beatle-knowledgable people.
-
No. I've pretty much said everything I have to say.
Very enjoyable though. Don't know about you, but there's no where else I could go and discuss something like this with likeminded and Beatle-knowledgable people.
This was/is a good topic. Thank you Mr Horse. But I must admit I feel a strong segregation between people who are looking for strong discussions and people who are just posting their randomness. That's the way it is, obviously. But it doesn't make me fall in love completely with this kind of thing.
-
This was/is a good topic. Thank you Mr Horse. But I must admit I feel a strong segregation between people who are looking for strong discussions and people who are just posting their randomness. That's the way it is, obviously. But it doesn't make me fall in love completely with this kind of thing.
That's good old DM's. Live and let live - not everyone wants big discussions. Not everyone posts in the same style. You choose the bits you like and disregard the bits you don't. It's easy really.
I like the eclectisness (sp) of this place. You can't love everyone, but you can try and get along. Like I've said before, I really enjoy talking about The Beatles and the sixties and popular culture. There's no where else in my real life I can get this. And if to get it means a bit of tolerance then it's a very small price to pay.
It might even do me some good.
-
That's good old DM's. Live and let live - not everyone wants big discussions. Not everyone posts in the same style. You choose the bits you like and disregard the bits you don't. It's easy really.
I like the eclectisness (sp) of this place. You can't love everyone, but you can try and get along. Like I've said before, I really enjoy talking about The Beatles and the sixties and popular culture. There's no where else in my real life I can get this. And if to get it means a bit of tolerance then it's a very small price to pay.
It might even do me some good.
I completely agree with you, Kevin heheheh. The pitty is that I don't have much time to join here because I don't have a computer at home and I use the ones at work but there is not much time either but I still remmeber our discussion about that Julian's drawing and Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds some months ago. I like the variety of people and points of view here and the fun too but the problem with a few people is that tolerance and 'live and let live' are not in their dictionaries. A pitty too.
-
Just for the record - there are things that p*ss me off around here. I'm not Buddha or anything (sticking with the God theme here). I have on occassion shared my discontent with people I consider likeminded - but I think they would agree it's all done in a reasonably lighthearted way.
-
Just for the record - there are things that p*ss me off around here. I'm not Buddha or anything (sticking with the God theme here). I have on occassion shared my discontent with people I consider likeminded - but I think they would agree it's all done in a reasonably lighthearted way.
'Reasonably lighthearted' is a good definition I think.It is clear that we cannot agree with everything or everbody here but being saying all the time the things we do not agree can be another thing we cannot agree too.I hope you understand what I am trying to say.Anyway I have to return to work. Bye.Nice to talk to you again,Kevin.
-
'Reasonably lighthearted' is a good definition I think.It is clear that we cannot agree with everything or everbody here but being saying all the time the things we do not agree can be another thing we cannot agree too.I hope you understand what I am trying to say.Anyway I have to return to work. Bye.Nice to talk to you again,Kevin.
Cheers. Just wanted to make the point that I don't consider myself perfect.
-
Cheers. Just wanted to make the point that I don't consider myself perfect.
Well, in the words of Monty Python, "We are all individuals & we all have to
work it out for ourselves!" ;D :)
-
I know I wrote all that stuff before too, but once you look at it, you realize that there is just to much to say about John.
You can't just go off what people say, I like John, and I don't care what people consider him, have it be a "God" or just a "little lad from Liverpool".... yes, he has done some things i am not fond of but, he also had done a lot of great things as well.....
So I don't consider him a "god" but more of a great guy... and amazing musician! ;)
-
Nobody's a god or saint or anything, We're all just human!!
-
Yes Yes..... ;)
-
and some of us aren't even human. in his hamburg days, i bet john lennon was closer to being a swine than a human being, let alone a god.
-
Nobody's a god or saint or anything, We're all just human!!
Yes Yes..... ;)
Unless your name is Flaming Pie in the Sky... just kidding :P
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together :)
-
in his hamburg days, i bet john lennon was closer to being a swine than a human being, let alone a god.
John's in good company. Or, to paraphrase Robert Heinlein, "This is the age when a young girl is ready for marriage, and a young man should be locked up in a barrel and fed through the bunghole until he's 25."
-
Yes, he had his great history of his Peace activities but he did have history of
beating people up in Hamburg :-/
He admitted he could be a violent person at times but rather lived peacefully!
-
He for the most part was not afraid to say what he thought, which... I think.... requires courage
-
He for the most part was not afraid to say what he thought, which... I think.... requires courage
and stupidity
-
He for the most part was not afraid to say what he thought, which... I think.... requires courage
and stupidity
Mostly courage and a little stupidity for the heck of it
-
I certainly don't think it takes stupidity to say what you think.... Stupid was the last thing that John was...
-
because he's dead, as someone else said.
which reminds me of kurt cobain and nirvana, i don't think anybody would care about nirvana if kurt wasn't dead. now [at least in my country] everybody's like "omg why did kurt die :'("] which is disgusting, because if he wasn't dead you wouldn't even know his name.
i'm not comparing kurt with john, but they have this in common imo.
-
John was killed, Kurt killed himself...
-
because he's dead, as someone else said.
which reminds me of kurt cobain and nirvana, i don't think anybody would care about nirvana if kurt wasn't dead. now [at least in my country] everybody's like "omg why did kurt die :'("] which is disgusting, because if he wasn't dead you wouldn't even know his name.
i'm not comparing kurt with john, but they have this in common imo.
KC died because he was screwed up and he killed himself. I can understand people saying 'why did John die'. They have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever.
-
Well they do... people who do threads like this.
No Raxo contribution to this either, considering he contributes to every thread it is a surprise, guess he just renounces from it... oh well.
-
Well they do... people who do threads like this.
No Raxo contribution to this either, considering he contributes to every thread it is a surprise, guess he just renounces from it... oh well.
I think some people consider it Heresy if you don't think John was God.
-
I dunno about that. I just want to know how he feels on the subject.
-
but they are both dead, aren't they? people adore artist who die young. and a lot of kurt fans don't think he killed himself anyway.
-
I admire both John & Kurt even though they were different people, but their
music seems to have a strong effect on people & me.
John was a much more facinating artist to me than kurt though :-/
-
a god????john was everything but...you people seem to think with your brain in neutral...gods tend to be a bit supernatural john was just a fantastic musician not godly by my means...
-
I certainly don't think it takes stupidity to say what you think.... Stupid was the last thing that John was...
yes it was the last thing he was but it is on the list you at least agree to that....
-
oh wait the last thing he was was dead.....
-
OK I shalt blow this toothpick wide open by saying that John was God and so is everyone and everything else.
Put that in your pipe and do what you will...
-
I think the author of this thread was being deliberately provocative with The God thing. It stifles sensible discussion.
-
You don't say?
-
it is true kev.....i believe in the church of WAG...we are god
-
I think when they say "john lennon became a god" I don't think they mean in the sense of religion... you know.. but more of a power of rock n roll sort of.... it is hard to explain...
-
To me, because he was murdered (essential) and because he was the rebel of the Fab 4. George was the shy, Ringo was the good, and Paul was (still is) the genius.
-
I think when they say "john lennon became a god" I don't think they mean in the sense of religion... you know.. but more of a power of rock n roll sort of.... it is hard to explain...
Yes, I think we all knew that.
but they are both dead, aren't they? people adore artist who die young. and a lot of kurt fans don't think he killed himself anyway.
And some people think Elvis got on their bus this morning!
-
I think when they say "john lennon became a god" I don't think they mean in the sense of religion... you know.. but more of a power of rock n roll sort of.... it is hard to explain...
But from my expiriance there are alot of people who do not have a clear idea on the matter of God. So with a simple sentence 'Why did John become a God' leaves your mind to think in any interpetation that the mind may wish. Maybe?
-
Alot of people adored John and still do but he isn't god or super human or whatever. he was a super star but like any human he wasn't perfect, far from it but he was great. I don't think it means anything when people say that he was god, just another way of expressing how much you admire someones talent and music, I guess oh and the fact that he is dead and the way he died.
-
i personally dont get the whole emphases on lennon thing, whenever i talk to someonewho is a non beatles fan they all love lennon, not just one or two of them but every person ive known that isnt a huge beatles fan, its only when i talk to actual beatles fans that the decision is split, im hoping there is something more to these peoples answers than it being about his sad death, lennon or anyone else i dont think there death should take anything away from anyone else who worked along side them and deserve as much credit for there work together, and with the whole lennon is the greatest thing it always seems to be accompanied with how much they hate mccartney ? they dont even know much of the beatles but theyre able to pick lennon out and then put down mccartney to back up how much they love lennon? and then they tell me there favourite beatles songs are let it be or hey jude ? ive always been baffled by it, its something that just cant be explained even when you ask these ppl why they love lennon they cant ever give a decent reason for why they like him, unless you count "he was the coolest" coolest in what sense style ? maybe they all had similiar styles and changed as soon as the others changed, i dont know lennon but from what ive read of his life outside of the beatles, mccartney or the george or ringo lived a more saintly life and if anythign they are closer to being more god like than that of lennon.
-
I think more people can relate to John Lennon than say any of the other Beatles, because his personality is now a Rock N Roll cliche. There has been a plentittude of post- Lennon musical idols who all seem to parody his rebellious, against the establishment sentiment. A musical idol is naturally a person who inspires, and Lennon over the years has been turned into a caricture who represents amongst others - tennage angst and working class radicalism.
In my opinion, I think Lennon's symbolism can in many ways take away from his musicianship.
-
People always become bigger figures in death, couple that with the fact that few people symbolize a decade, era, generation like John has. He advocated peace and died a violent death. Toss into the stew all of the myth and magic of the Beatles and you have a deity-like figure.
-
I don't listen to John because he's a 'dead icon figure' :'(. I appreciate the music & work
he gave us. I've been a Lennon freak for so long, it's impossible to assume that he is
gone. To me he as always seemed to be here & he has always helped me in bad times get
through my life (the same as the other 3 :)).
It's the same kinda thing with another one of my hero's Elliott Smith.
I loved his work so much when he was alive & always thought he was ghastly underatted as a
songwriter & the next minute he's gone & then people claimed to have liked his stuff before
he died.
But i've never rated Jimi Henrix that highly as most people do. OK, he died young & that is terrble.
But i never thought he was that a great songwriter :-/ but i did think he was a brilliant guitarist.
I'm not sure wheather he was that a good guitarist by the end though. :-/
-
elliot smith :) like mccartney and lennon rolled up into one with an add of beach boys and jeff buckley for good measure
-
I much prefer the drug abusing, chain smoking, paranoid, cynical, self obsessed, bisexual, witty, generous, sharp tongued, cruel master-songwriter* who stood naked on his roof and watched UFO's.
(*Though he hadn't written a decent song since 1972)
I agree with this. He was a big bastard and people refuse to look at that side of him.
-
I agree with this. He was a big bastard and people refuse to look at that side of him.
Because that would be 'blasphemous' to which I say 'bullsh*t'. He was a man. A carbon-based imperfect human being and had his strengths and weaknesses like all of us. Fairy tales are fiction.
-
with the whole lennon is the greatest thing it always seems to be accompanied with how much they hate mccartney ? they dont even know much of the beatles but theyre able to pick lennon out and then put down mccartney to back up how much they love lennon?
I don't get it eithur, those people usually love Yoko. John couldn't have done it with out Paul. They were both great.
-
Because that would be 'blasphemous' to which I say 'bullsh*t'. He was a man. A carbon-based imperfect human being and had his strengths and weaknesses like all of us. Fairy tales are fiction.
Fairy tales? Well, i'm an imperfect man too, but I didnt have my wife walk in on me while I was having sex with another woman in her own bed. I didnt neglect a child I had to turn around and raise my other one as if he was the second coming of Christ. I've also never had a homosexual relationship with another man either.
He's done plenty wrong. It equals or surpasses what he's done right in my opinion, so lets get over ourselves and admit some shortcomings too, regardless of who he was.
-
you guys have it all wrong...pete is god pete the best....while john is my favorite preformer he deserves no god status...nor does pete but todd maybe...... :K)
-
theyre able to pick lennon out and then put down mccartney to back up how much they love lennon?
I find this trait very peculiar as well. Someone will have one of the Beatles as their favorite and then put down the others. Certainly I'm drawn to some Beatles' music more than others, but I think the world can use more happiness. I'm happy to celebrate what I love and not spend my time complaining about... what I don't love quite so well. :)
While I wouldn't put having a homosexual relationship in the "wrong" category (unless you simply mean committing adultery), John did not shine in his personal or family life. He was a brilliant artist and I respect him for his talent and genius. I think part of understanding him is acknowledging his personal unhappiness. He had challenges to overcome, which it seems he was learning to overcome, particularly in the last year before he was taken from us. George Martin feels very strongly on that point, and I could see John's personal evolution myself in collections of interviews over time, such as Keith Badman's "The Beatles Off The Record Volume 2: The Dream Is Over". (Sorry I keep quoting that book, but it's a huge book and it's taking me ages to get through it. I like it because it quotes the Beatles extensively in their own words over a period of decades, so you can see how they change and grow.)
-
I don't think people ignore the bastard side of John at all. In fact it makes him all the more fascinating. People love his brutal honesty and cruel wit which is very much a part of his bastard side. If Paul were more of a bastard sometimes I think he'd get more respect. He comes off as too phony and people don't trust that.
-
I don't think people ignore the bastard side of John at all. In fact it makes him all the more fascinating. People love his brutal honesty and cruel wit which is very much a part of his bastard side. If Paul were more of a bastard sometimes I think he'd get more respect. He comes off as too phony and people don't trust that.
yeah i agree with what you say about paul, he is my favourite beatle, but sometimes when i watch them on film he always seems to eager to please everyone and be funny and comes off really forced, where as the other beatles are so laid back and natural comics each in there own way.
So maybe lennon although he is a complete **** in his personal life comes across better because he doesnt try to hide it, but i still think as forced or cheesy as mccartney is he's lived a pretty sound life, had a family never cheated, stuck by his wife right through till her sad death, raised her first child as it was his own, just an all round nice normal guy, but maybe being normal doesnt cut it int he cool stakes?.
-
Paul was more of a father to Julian than John was. Thats pretty sad.
-
I much prefer the drug abusing, chain smoking, paranoid, cynical, self obsessed, bisexual, witty, generous, sharp tongued, cruel master-songwriter
I couldn't agree with you more.
---
Although Mccartney does come off as being fake and all smiles, I reckon he could have been as big of a bastard as Lennon. Although Lennon & Mccartney's mutual respect for one another was channeled through their passion for music, they both gelled as people. There are plenty of interviews, TV clips and extracts from source material to suggest that Mccartney could be just as selfish, sardonic & imperious as Lennon.
(http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/lennon_mccartney_cp_8810508.jpg)
-
Yeah, it's pretty sad how John was full of troubles in his life. His first son came in the innapropiated moment, during the Beatlemania, and he doesn't have a real father in John. Another terrible moment was when Yoko losted her pregnancy during 1969, and later the infamous 'lost weekend'. It seems like John has many moments of pain in his life and for Paul almost all was shiny and bright. I'm sad for John sometimes.
-
I get the feeling that Lennon was quite a bastard because of his hurt throughout his life,
but McCartney just seems a bit of a twat because of his success? :-/
-
LOL! Andy, I love you. (And the Beatles, too.)
Cheers.
-
He just keeps chasing John's memory. He has been validated. He 'discovered' John Cage and the other Avant Garde before John. Just doesn't get the credit because he's not dead.
-
I wonder if Lennon would be revered with such God like status if he had died a more natural death, rather than being murdered?
It's interesting to see that very few people that have come here think of John Lennon as some kind of God. This opinion of him seems to be pretty much the reserve of 'non Beatles fans'. That is: they love Lennon, think McCartney is a twat, and think Ringo can't play the drums. Whereas, every Beatles fan I have ever known respects McCartney for his musicianship, knows that Ringo was essential to The Beatles, and a very fine drummer, and knows that Lennon's wasn't perfect.
-
LOL! Andy, I love you. (And the Beatles, too.)
Cheers.
And i love you too HariHead! (AND GEORGIE!) ;)
(http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=ArPfOsF4n26bPhZapuhIAa5WBQx./SIG=11rb950kn/**http%3A//www.abc.net.au/religion/news/img/g-harrison.jpg)
-
I get the feeling that Lennon was quite a bastard because of his hurt throughout his life,
but McCartney just seems a bit of a twat because of his success? :-/
Ha.
But I think we should remember that these men were products of their place and time. Cyn says that she didn't consider John's behaviour extraordinary at the time because that is how she expected a northern working class man to behave. Caring, nuturing men who involved themselves with their childs upbringing and their partners emotional wellbeing would have been very much the exception rather than the norm. If they were ars*holes (by our standards), then there's a good chance that had nothing to do with dead mothers or success.
The emotional distance, self containment and callousness they all seemed capable of does seem remarkable by todays standards, but these were not reconstructed metrosexuals. The only time my own dad (from Toxteth) showed anything of his inner feelings was when he was either talking about Liverpool FC or shouting.
-
paul was possesive, controlling, jeolous, egotistical, unfaithful, a womanizer ect. he also abandoned his first child wanting nothing to do with him, poor kid, and treated that childs mother like sh*t. yeh paul was just perfect. people don't see the bastard side of him but they're ready to point out Johns. atleast John tried to do the right thing by marrying cyn.
I still like Paul though :) but he might of been even more a bastard then John.
-
paul was possesive, controlling, jeolous, egotistical, unfaithful, a womanizer ect. he also abandoned his first child wanting nothing to do with him, poor kid, and treated that childs mother like sh*t. yeh paul was just perfect. people don't see the bastard side of him but they're ready to point out Johns. atleast John tried to do the right thing by marrying cyn.
I still like Paul though :) but he might of been even more a bastard then John.
True. The only reason John's personality is coming under such scrutiny is the yawning gap between the general public perception and reality. Paul has no such mystique.
-
This quote from John about meeting Elvis I find a bit haunting: "We couldn't stand not doing personal appearances, we'd get bored - we get bored quickly." And less than a year later they stopped. John always looks like he's enjoying himself on stage, even on the final tour. I wish he'd kept his own advise.
-
Percieved wisdom^.
I believe you were a fool for believing the "Lennon is God" bit in the past and a fool for believing the "Lennon is Dog" bit now.
Do I make myself clear?
-
paul was possesive, controlling, jeolous, egotistical, unfaithful, a womanizer ect. he also abandoned his first child wanting nothing to do with him, poor kid, and treated that childs mother like sh*t. yeh paul was just perfect.
I'm confussed?? :-/
-
I wonder if Lennon would be revered with such God like status if he had died a more natural death, rather than being murdered?
.
No. Look at Marilyn Monroe and James Dean. If they lived to be fat and old we'd never even hear their names. But the Beatles legend thing would still exist so he'd be revered in some way or other. That and he was incredibly loved by people. Or by what he gave them. It's just the tragic element to his death that's hard to swallow so people compensate by putting him on some other worldly plane.
BTW, what's with the bisexual thing. He always denied it. Do we not believe him?
Also, what kid did Paul abandon?? As far as I know his girlfriend never had the kid and he was also ready to marry her at some point.
-
Also, what kid did Paul abandon?? As far as I know his girlfriend never had the kid and he was also ready to marry her at some point.
That's what confused me! :-/
-
No. Look at Marilyn Monroe and James Dean. If they lived to be fat and old we'd never even hear their names.
Maybe, but they didn't. I wish this board would concentrate on what is rather that what if. What if's are completely redundant.
I shall now resist from posting or reading on these silly threads, they are full of stupid gossip monkeys.
-
wtf paul abandoned a child ? :o i thought he just had a few girlfriends and then settled down with linda ? ,ill need to do some more reading up on them any good suggestions for a book ?
-
Maybe, but they didn't. I wish this board would concentrate on what is rather that what if. What if's are completely redundant.
I shall now resist from posting or reading on these silly threads, they are full of stupid gossip monkeys.
It's human nature to wonder "what if." Like, what if you hadn't responded to this thread or what if you had refrained from calling people stupid gossip monkeys for no apparent reason. I can't help but wonder about things like that. Sorry.
-
Also, what kid did Paul abandon?? As far as I know his girlfriend never had the kid and he was also ready to marry her at some point.
No not Dot (if thats who you mean) another one called Anita and his son is called Philip I read it here
http://sentstarr.tripod.com/beatgirls/anita.html
and it says the sources on the bottom of the page so it must be true.
-
I would think this would be bigger news if it were true. I also believe Paul would acknowledge any child he had if he knew it was really his.
-
Well, I hope it's not true.
-
Well, I hope it's not true.
Weird! :-/
-
I don't think that being dead makes you anymore of a legend.Everyone has an idea about John, whether they are a fan of him
or not. I think there were many sides of John, and to make a fair judgement about him and who he was, you have to know every one of those aspects. Which I think no one ever really did, maybe besides Stu.
It's just so hard to even write down what your opinions are when it comes to John, because he grew so much in one lifetime. And it has been hard for me to do through this thread. Personally, I can't put my feelings about him into words very well. He did do some bad and rude things in his life, but then he did do some good things. But I love John and I love what he stands for now. Even though he wasn't the greatest person in life, he wanted to make the world a better place, and he's still spreading love and peace even though he's gone. That doesn't mean that his death made him anymore of a legend. The path he took in life, the songs he sang in life, the peace and love he spoke about made him a legend in life, which just carried on an grew afterwards.
-
It's human nature to wonder "what if." Like, what if you hadn't responded to this thread or what if you had refrained from calling people stupid gossip monkeys for no apparent reason. I can't help but wonder about things like that. Sorry.
It's also human nature to go to war. That doesn't stop it from still being a stupid thing to do.
People are stupid gossip monkeys because they do not know nor understand what they are talking about. It's called idle speculation, which in turn, leads to rumors and other stupid gossip monkeys printing these rumors in magazines and newspapers for other stupid gossip monkeys to read and idly speculate some more. It's a negative snowball effect. I can suppose it can be annoying and sometimes painfull for anyone who is on the end of it, that is why I try to resist from such an act. It's an indictment of the current "cult of celebrity" bs.
Although I'm prone to falsehoods I try to base myself in truth.
But you carry on...
-
That doesn't mean that his death made him anymore of a legend. The path he took in life, the songs he sang in life, the peace and love he spoke about made him a legend in life
Very well stated! The Beatles did seem to lead "bigger than life" lives. It's to their credit that they chose to do things like promote peace and love and happiness, even if attaining these things for themselves was just as troublesome as it usually is for everybody else. :)
Regarding Paul's supposed illegitimate children, I believe he had whatever tests done that were available that proved he wasn't the father, or at least did not prove that he was. He did pay out a lot of money to keep girls silent (two of them?) on Epstein's advice, but later on he did look into the matter to clear it up. I think I read this in my big fat Badman book, as that gives Beatles quotes through 2000. Through it all, Paul was pretty certain he wasn't the father and the girl (or girls) was equally certain he was. It could be an honest mistake here. I assume the Beatles were pretty careful, or they would have left tons of little Beatles all over.
-
It's also human nature to go to war. That doesn't stop it from still being a stupid thing to do.
People are stupid gossip monkeys because they do not know nor understand what they are talking about. It's called idle speculation, which in turn, leads to rumors and other stupid gossip monkeys printing these rumors in magazines and newspapers for other stupid gossip monkeys to read and idly speculate some more. It's a negative snowball effect. I can suppose it can be annoying and sometimes painfull for anyone who is on the end of it, that is why I try to resist from such an act. It's an indictment of the current "cult of celebrity" bs.
Although I'm prone to falsehoods I try to base myself in truth.
But you carry on...
What you say has little to do with this thread. This is far from a gossip thread. Gossip is nothing more than an immature spreading of information true or false. Debating why a person obtained God status is nothing more than a group of people engaging in a hypothetical discussion. I can't see how anything said here can be interpreted as idle gossip. Which by the way we all engage in on some level and if say that you never have then you are in denial. Again, human nature. Yeah, and humans don't always behave perfectly.
One other thing. If you have a point to make to people isn't it best to do it without an attitude? Don't you find calling people names and putting others down as abhorrent as gossip?
-
Maybe, but they didn't. I wish this board would concentrate on what is rather that what if. What if's are completely redundant.
I shall now resist from posting or reading on these silly threads, they are full of stupid gossip monkeys.
I fully understand that the whats and ifs of life don't interest you. All the power to you. What I don't understand is why you feel so threatened by people who do. Is your resort to short sneering threads an attempt to cover up some inadequacy, or do you find it a more mature endevour than the idle gossip of which you accuse us?
-
BTW, what's with the bisexual thing. He always denied it. Do we not believe him?
Speaking for myself - no, I don't believe him.
Banana anyone?
-
It's also human nature to go to war. That doesn't stop it from still being a stupid thing to do.
People are stupid gossip monkeys because they do not know nor understand what they are talking about. It's called idle speculation, which in turn, leads to rumors and other stupid gossip monkeys printing these rumors in magazines and newspapers for other stupid gossip monkeys to read and idly speculate some more. It's a negative snowball effect. I can suppose it can be annoying and sometimes painfull for anyone who is on the end of it, that is why I try to resist from such an act. It's an indictment of the current "cult of celebrity" bs.
Although I'm prone to falsehoods I try to base myself in truth.
But you carry on...
I suggest this conversation stops now before it gets too heated. Whoever, if you have a problem with the thread then simply don't participate in it.
Cheers.
Paul.
-
Very well stated!
Thanks harihead ;)
-
What you say has little to do with this thread. This is far from a gossip thread. Gossip is nothing more than an immature spreading of information true or false. Debating why a person obtained God status is nothing more than a group of people engaging in a hypothetical discussion.
A hypothesis is an assumption, an assumption is taken for granted as the truth. It is not the truth. To my mind it is to idly gossip and speculate about peoples private lives, which this thread (and others) has been degenerating into with the idle gossip about Paul McCartney's supposed illegitimate children and John Lennon's sexuality without searching for facts one way or the other on the situation. Those things are not important to me, but if they are for others then fine.
I can't see how anything said here can be interpreted as idle gossip. Which by the way we all engage in on some level and if say that you never have then you are in denial.
Everyones a hypocrite, everyone contradicts themselves.
Again, human nature. Yeah, and humans don't always behave perfectly.
I think it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
If you have a point to make to people isn't it best to do it without an attitude? Don't you find calling people names and putting others down as abhorrent as gossip?
Yeah probably, but when I read something I disagree with I don't always make the perfect response. I'm not articulate enough to do so, I should take more time to elaborate my feelings to you. I do not mean offence to anyone, I just try to convey what I mean as instinctively and succinctly as possible. I'm a contradiction of myself.
Although I'm prone to falsehoods I try to base myself in truth.
Kevin, I have already explained myself to you. If you do not understand, you do not understand.
-
I love this from The Mersey Beat website:
"On March 22 1970 L'Express, a French magazine, published an interview with John Lennon in which he claimed that the Beatles smoked marijuana in the toilets at Buckingham Palace." This was untrue, an example of John's occasionally bizarre sense of humour."
Johns fantasizing (or lying, I won't quibble) gets an automatic upgrade to "bizarre sense of humour."
-
Si post fata venit gloria, non propero.
-
Si post fata venit gloria, non propero.
I can't read French. translation please
-
It's Latin.
If glory comes after death, I'm not in a hurry.
-
It's Latin.
If glory comes after death, I'm not in a hurry.
A. Cheers. Please tell me you knew I was joking.
B. If you knew that translation without looking it up I'm deeply impressed. I've always wanted to learn latin.
-
hehehe!
-
A. Cheers. Please tell me you knew I was joking.
B. If you knew that translation without looking it up I'm deeply impressed. I've always wanted to learn latin.
A. Yes.
B. Sort of. It's quite a famous saying. I looked it up to check.
-
I don't think alot of idiots martyring you is any sort of glory. It's a load of Christian bs. In my opinion.
-
Cornicularius Piperis Delva Animus Stipes Caterva.
This is why The Romans never sussed rock and roll.
-
Yes maybe so. Enough of the Latin, this isn't Vatican City, although I'll have whatever the Pope's having. :P
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01fL1smK0Ug
-
Still, the myth is very much alive. Found this:
ST JOHN (ACCORDING TO PETER HOWSON)
Artist unveils his greatest portrait ever..of tragic Beatles legend John Lennon as a Biblical prophet. JOHN LENNON once said the Beatles were more famous than Jesus. Now he has been reinvented as a Biblical prophet by artist Peter Howson.
Born-again Christian Howson said Lennon's spirit encouraged him to paint this striking, wildhaired, haunted portrait.
Howson has given the Sunday Mail exclusive first pictures of his latest works - which include what he says is the finest portrait he has ever completed. He did it specially for a new exhibtion of 20 works, inspired by Lennon, which will be displayed at the Northern Lights Festival in Durness, Sutherland.
Former war artist Howson said Lennon "encouraged" him to paint his portrait and even approved the final results. He said: "I could feel John's spirit right next to me - it was kind of weird. He kept egging me on until he was pleased with it. It is probably the finest portrait I've ever done. "At first I didn't want to do it. I see parallels with my life and John's. We both knew how to hit the self-destruct button. But I think he had a spiritual quality and the more I got into drawing him, the more I got to know him - and what a great person he was.
"I have depicted him expressing his spiritual qualities - a bit of a Saint John if you like. He looks like a Biblical prophet because that's how I see him. "But I also found him a lonely, complex character, full of sadness and dignity. "I have tried to capture that by making him a "fool on the hill' in one pastel. Paul McCartney could have written that song about John, because that's how I saw him at times."
Howson turned to Christianity after spending £1million on drugs and booze. He feels no resentment towards Lennon over his infamous claim that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus". He said: "I can see what he was getting at. He was more against organised religion and in favour of a personal relationship with God. "Christianity is not a religion - it is a relationship with God. John was a spiritual seeker after that. At first I could not get anything down on paper but then I felt him talking to me saying: 'Come on, man, you can do it.' He certainly was pleased with the results - he said that. If John's pleased, so am I. I think he was a guy full of love who needed a cuddle from time to time. Yoko provided that love and I think Durness also played its part in shaping him." Lennon holidayed in Durness as a child and teenager and returned as an adult with Yoko Ono and children Julian and Kyoko in 1969.
The today
-
^ At least in the minds of a blabbering ex-junkie and the good burghers of Durness keen to give people a reason to visit their no-doubt fabulous town. I only hope the Loch Croispol Bookshop will cope with the crowds.
Mind - if they really wanted to attract attention, portraying John as Mohammed would have been a much better bet.
-
^Excellent!
-
Oh, this is BRILLIANT! I love the whole thing! (And your response, Kevin.)
This is great. I'm sure all those outraged Southerners in the 60's would have changed their tune about John's Jesus statement if they could have seen this moving portrait of John as a Biblical prophet. *listens for change of tune * hears crickets chirp*
-
John wasn't a God, he just gave us something to remember