Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Indica]

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.  

[wingsman]

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.

[Andy Smith]

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? :-/

[harihead]

LOL! Andy, I love you. (And the Beatles, too.)

Cheers.

[834]

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.

[BlueMeanie]

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.

[Andy Smith]

LOL! Andy, I love you. (And the Beatles, too.)

Cheers.

And i love you too HariHead! (AND GEORGIE!)

[Kevin]

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.

[The walrus]

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[Whoever]

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?

[Andy Smith]

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?? :-/

[Sondra]

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.

[Andy Smith]

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! :-/

[Whoever]

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.

[fendertele]

wtf paul abandoned a child ?   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 ?

[Sondra]

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.

[The walrus]

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.

[Sondra]

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.