Lennon or McCartney?

I assume most of us love, or at least respect both of them. But who do you like more? (only one)

I have all the respect for Sir Paul McCartney, but Lennon is GOD!

Maybe McCartney is a Demi-God.

Indeed!

Ringo Star!

Thomas The Tank Engine legend!

I'm not a lover of the Beatles but as I like some of Lennon's solo stuff I've voted for him. Where is George Harrison on the list? (I've got my mind set on you!)

Oh and Ringo Starr wants stoning for his 'musical' contribution to the Liverpool City of Culture

I voted Lennon because hes dead

not a fan, but I voted Lennon. I do like Imagine

I voted Phil Spector cause my friend lived across the street from where he murdered his girlfriend. My friend couldn't leave his house for a couple weeks cause the Press were swarming outside like flies on a dead cow....

Beatles were shit, Lennon and McCartney both blow great big donkey dicks in the sky full of diamonds

i like them both actually, but I could see why chapman thought lennon was a phony.

however,My favorite by a country mile was georgie.

The Sub-Cultured Perfect Kisser*!* wrote: I assume most of us love, or at least respect both of them. But who do you like more? (only one)

I have all the respect for Sir Paul McCartney, but Lennon is GOD!

Maybe McCartney is a Demi-God.

Indeed!

Can you FUCK OFF with this SHITE.

I see the change of scenery is doing you a world of good Li

Ive got two John Lennon books that im getting rid of,

if anybody wants them....

i went for macca, and what do you know, in the minority again.by 7 to 1

lennon

John Lennon

I don't know why you, British, hate the Beatles, they're yours!! I love the Beatles, I can't help it - it's the first pop music I have listened to for years, so I can't change my past and my sonic memory. But pleaseeee, don't consider me a hippy who wears flowers and takes LCD or proclaims a new age of love.

Now it should be Lennon, at least he's interesting at interviews, to the point always. McCartney is more accesible in terms of music and that's it about him.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: I don't know why you, British, hate the Beatles, they're yours!! I love the Beatles, I can't help it - it's the first pop music I have listened to for years, so I can't change my past and my sonic memory. But pleaseeee, don't consider me a hippy who wears flowers and takes LCD or proclaims a new age of love.

Now it should be Lennon, at least he's interesting at interviews, to the point always. McCartney is more accesible in terms of music and that's it about him.

Ian...it's LSD that one takes...not LCD...that's a soundsystem!!!

WHOOOOO

aw that's right, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: I don't know why you, British, hate the Beatles, they're yours!! I love the Beatles, I can't help it - it's the first pop music I have listened to for years, so I can't change my past and my sonic memory. But pleaseeee, don't consider me a hippy who wears flowers and takes LCD or proclaims a new age of love.

Now it should be Lennon, at least he's interesting at interviews, to the point always. McCartney is more accesible in terms of music and that's it about him.

Ian...it's LSD that one takes...not LCD...that's a soundsystem!!!

WHOOOOO

... but he likes LSD Soundsystem. ;)

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: I don't know why you, British, hate the Beatles, they're yours!! I love the Beatles, I can't help it - it's the first pop music I have listened to for years, so I can't change my past and my sonic memory. But pleaseeee, don't consider me a hippy who wears flowers and takes LCD or proclaims a new age of love.

Now it should be Lennon, at least he's interesting at interviews, to the point always. McCartney is more accesible in terms of music and that's it about him.

Ian...it's LSD that one takes...not LCD...that's a soundsystem!!!

WHOOOOO

In Soviet Union, LSD takes you.

LENNON FOR EVER

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: I don't know why you, British, hate the Beatles, they're yours!

I don't hate them, they just never did it for me. I would suspect I'm in the minority over here though, I think most people love the Beatles (or pretend to because they feel they should )

Lennon, every time. Stupid question.

Marvin

Burty

Most people I know have a nodding respect for them. The only person I know who really rates them is my Dad.

It's Dad music

John Lennon was a rocker to the core. Paul McCartney is a whore.

Anyone could have written great songs with John Lennon.

Face the facts. Lennon went on to write some of the best songs ever written without McCartney. Waching the Wheels go Round, Woman, How do you Sleep, Imagine...

Mull of Kin fucking tire and the Frog Song. What a tart. And Ebony and Ivory? He couldn't even rock when sitting on the same chair of one of the fathers of funk.

McCartney is a penis. I shit him.

And another thing. There's no such thing as a Lennon and McCartney song. They never wrote together, just added ideas to one another's songs at a late stage.

As a rule of thumb if it's any good it's a Lennon tune. If it's shit, it's McCartney. And if it's Something, it's by George Harrison.

They fucked it when they recorded Yellow Submarine.

i love the beatles. mmmmmmmmmm. the beatles.

Aaron Lennon has some potential, definitely. Great pace. George McCartney's just a journeyman fullback though. Average premiership pro, nothing more.

I think this piece of footage illustrates how much of a cunt Mccartney is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1opt82xmnSk

And another thing. Why is there always this kneejerk response whereby Mccartney or Beatles material is always considered timeless and anything synthetic from the 80's is always branded as dated and no longer relevant?

Lennon overall. Though I have a theory,or a strong hunch at least..that anyone who says they don't like McCartney's 'Band on the Run' is telling porkies,or simply needs to listen to it again.ALL OF IT.. I've gone out on a limb(though always confident)and tested it out against naysers on back to mine after the pub type do's...Even the worst of music snobs gives in to the brilliance of 'Band on the run' Always.Magic

Between the two, Lennon.

Between the Beatles altogether, definitely George.

Electric Dreams wrote:

And another thing. Why is there always this kneejerk response whereby Mccartney or Beatles material is always considered timeless and anything synthetic from the 80's is always branded as dated and no longer relevant?

Who responds in this manner?

I mean who outside of Liverpool

Hey nights at Boaty's after the pub sound GREAT don't they.

Forced to sit and listen to Paul McCartney albums until you admit that they're not shit.

Thanks for the warning, I'll be sure to avoid that

Rev Big wrote: Hey nights at Boaty's after the pub sound GREAT don't they.

Forced to sit and listen to Paul McCartney albums until you admit that they're not shit.

Thanks for the warning, I'll be sure to avoid that

Not the Album..I'm not THAT sort of pervert.

Just the song...over,and over and over again,until everyone's ears piss blood..I'm that sort of pervert

You really are a wrongun!

I thought you were saying that the album had some good tracks on it, other than the crap title track.

It's crap, mate. Get over it

Are you saying it's not your cuppa cocoa Col? Not even the intro,or the guitar halfway in? You are pulling my pisser,shirley.. It's 3 for 1,or 3 songs in one and it's bute,ask absolutely anyone...

This has to go to poll

I'll take defeat with grace ofcourse,but that won't happen,no siree..

I will blow your 3 for 1 argument out of the water with just two words:

Bohemian and Rhapsody.

Put it to the poll, you'll loose.

And another thing. If Paul McCartney's songs hag good guitars on them it's because he hired a good guitarist. Anyone can do that. John Lennon played guitar, which makes him better than anyone who didn't. And better than anyone who ponced around with a stupid bass that looked like a fucking violin. God what a bastard he is.

Here look at this. Final proof that McCartney is a total jerk:

he has purple hair,granted.... You really hate him don't you?

Actually, Macca played all the guitar bits, and all the drum bits, and all the bass bits, and all the other bits, except for Linda's "vocals," on his first solo effort.

PS Great idea about the cocoa, I'd been wondering what to drink and it's a bit late for cawfee.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Actually, Macca played all the guitar bits, and all the drum bits, and all the bass bits, and all the other bits, except for Linda's "vocals," on his first solo effort.

Yes and that's why they were all shit.

Boatraceface wrote: he has purple hair,granted.... You really hate him don't you?

You've missed the point.

Something is one of the best songs ever. That's a fact. And it was written by George Harrison. In fact, it's the only really decent thing he ever did.

So in a tribute to him, Paul McCartney, suddenly claiming to be his best friend, ruins it completely by singing it in a daft mock-ironic scouse accent and plays a fucking tiny guitar that most people only play for a joke. The ukuleles come out my arse - he's LYING.

No if that's not bastardry of the very highest order, I don't know what it is.

Clapton's contribution are brilliant though. He really was Harrison's friend, although clearly not a very good one as he did fuck off with his wife. Mind you, if she was anything like my wife he did him a favour by nicking her.

Where is Patty these days anyway? Did she marry any more pop stars or give them up after Clapton?

Rev Big wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Actually, Macca played all the guitar bits, and all the drum bits, and all the bass bits, and all the other bits, except for Linda's "vocals," on his first solo effort.

Yes and that's why they were all shit.

Cheevers, Biggie, surely Maybe I'm Amazed was not shit...

Amazingly, I've never heard of this album.

I'm prepared to bet it's shit though.

What do you call a dog with wings?

Would that be a baying dog?

Yes,I knew about Clapton fucking off with Harrison's wife...Some mate he was..Commrade would do that sort of thing to anyone of us,would'nt he..Total Cad.

And 'something' is rather good...I best watch that and see what the fuck the purple haired one thinks he doing with a Time Bandit's guitar then,before we take this any further....

Edit: I had to turn it off as soon as Macca spoke..My Kid brother is here,and he might think I bum men,and tell our dad...

Hang on! Our dad likes all things Beatles..Tis Dad music afterall...Does HE bum men?

Boatraceface wrote: Yes,I knew about Clapton fucking off with Harrison's wife...Some mate he was..Commrade would do that sort of thing to anyone of us,would'nt he..Total Cad.....

The truth was, Clapton shagged (to use the technical parlance) his mate Harrison's wife because his mate Harrison had shagged Clapton's bird.

And then Clapton fell for his mate's wife.

And she wasn't having it. So he wrote Layla about it.

Pattie stayed with Harrison anyway, for another three years, until she found out that he had been shagging Ringo's wife. Then she fucked off with Clapton.

Afterwards, Harrison did a cover of Bye Bye Love on his Dark Horse album. With his mate Clapton's help, of course.

Among the songs penned by Harrison and Clapton about her, Pattie Boyd was the inspiration for Something, What is Life, Layla, and Wonderful Tonight...

That's not how I heard it Comrade..No,they all said YOU were the homewrecker!

Much more plausible than your'it was'nt me' version I'd say.

I should've asked for palimony....

That's not how it is described in Clapton's autobiography.

He says he stalked Pattie for years. He was totally obsessed by her and did indeed write Layla and Wonderful Tonight about her. I think it said he was nipping her sister for a bit, just to get close to her. I might have got that bit wrong, actually. He nagged and nagged her to leave George. When she finally did leave him she didn't move in with Clapton straight away, in fact it was some time before he found out that they'd split up. As soon as he did find out he nagged and nagged her to move in with him, which she eventually did. As soon as she was in place, however, he started shagging everything else within range and carried on with an impressive campaign of drinking and drug abuse. She left him loads of times but kept going back. It's an amazing read actually. He describes the most powerful feelings of love for her, yet seemed to do everything he could to destroy their relationship. Then, once it was destroyed, went to remarkable lengths to get her back. Of course they were both out of their heads all the time. A proper chemical romance.

Strange things happen when you take loads of drugs

Well, I haven't been arsed to read his autobiography, but I do remember at the time that he said he shagged her because George shagged his bird.

Was that the start of it, or did he stalk her before that, and use George's infidelity to get her into bed?

Both Harrison and Clapton appeared to have "fidelity" issues. Shame, really, because she seemed to be very committed to making those relationships work.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Both Harrison and Clapton appeared to have "fidelity" issues. Shame, really, because she seemed to be very committed to making those relationships work.

Did she have a 'two cock gob' it has to be asked?

Did Clapton mention anything specific as to why she was so wonderful in his book? Who would put up with such a disloyal woman like this? Did she give utterly splendid head? I'm baffled.

He had the 'E' sex experience with her did'nt he?? Ahh,now it makes sense.. Marathon rutting sessions to live for..

I'd have still binned the hussy though.Pride...dirty bitch.

There's a little piece that I think I will always remember from Clapton's book, simply because it's so true. He says that nobody holds a gun to the head of someone to make them put up with an addict. Patty certainly seemed to put up with a lot of daft behaviour from Clapton. In general, addicts choose to be around people who indulge them. Initially this takes the form of encouragement (finding drunken antics funny or joining in) and facilitation in later stages (driving your hopeless drunk partner to and from the pub, buying drink or drugs when he is too out of it to manage it, that sort of thing. Certainly an earlier girlfriend of Clapton's, who later died from her addiction, used to run out to get coke and smack for them.

One of the lessons that I understand is given in rehab is to break patterns of behaviour and that includes breaking relationships that are disruptive to the recovery.

I often wonder whether this played a part in the eventual break-up of New Order. Hooky being on the wagon and the rest still enjoying a drink. Even the memories that is invoked by hanging around with the same people and doing the same things must be a big strain when you're trying not to drink, as any designated driver will tell you.

This is just my little theory, probably totally bollocks. Most of my theories are.

Boatraceface wrote:

Did Clapton mention anything specific as to why she was so wonderful in his book? Who would put up with such a disloyal woman like this? Did she give utterly splendid head? I'm baffled.

I'd have still binned the hussy though.Pride...dirty bitch.

In his book he says that they rarely had sex. It was more of an obsession for him than an actual love affair. He was always shagging other people, so it's not like he didn't feel like getting his end away.

It's interesting that you ask that, because I don't recall him actually going into detail about why he thought she was so good. He was just obsessed. He was horrible to her though. I wouldn't say she was so out of order, given the crazy lifestyle of them all and the general mood of shaggery that seemed to prevail. And the fact that everyone was out of their minds on drugs.

A fascinating tale.

I like that theory Biggy..I'll pop out for a bag of brown and we can jab up and test it out...

I think that's all pretty true what you say there,as it goes about addicts and recovering addicts..

Though with Hooky and Barney i'm not sure it applies,cos they never really knocked about with eachother outside of touring anyway,did they? Not for many years since anyway,by all accounts... I just think they get on eachothers tits..well that's my theory,though mine are often wrong aswell..

They didn't inject it. They were crap heroin addicts, they snorted it. That's a very inefficient way of taking it, which is how he got through all of his money so quickly.

This is why he had to get clean enough to go back on the road. If he'd been injecting he would have been able to go on much longer before the cash ran out.

Rev Big wrote:

Boatraceface wrote:

Did Clapton mention anything specific as to why she was so wonderful in his book? Who would put up with such a disloyal woman like this? Did she give utterly splendid head? I'm baffled.

I'd have still binned the hussy though.Pride...dirty bitch.

In his book he says that they rarely had sex. It was more of an obsession for him than an actual love affair. He was always shagging other people, so it's not like he didn't feel like getting his end away.

It's interesting that you ask that, because I don't recall him actually going into detail about why he thought she was so good. He was just obsessed. He was horrible to her though. I wouldn't say she was so out of order, given the crazy lifestyle of them all and the general mood of shaggery that seemed to prevail. And the fact that everyone was out of their minds on drugs.

A fascinating tale.

Oh well if he was horrible to her,then fair enough..I take that back..he sounds like a right twat,and she sounds lovely now..She had alot to put up with then,but she must have got loads of free drugs out of him,so he was'nt all bad..

Did he rim the bitch? I should read this,even though his beard is mildly offputting.

You've no need now, I've just told you it all.

It's a very honest book, doesn't pull any punches or make excuses.

Neither does it record whether he rimmed the bitch.

His beard is indeed a disgrace. One of the photos shows nasal hair that would make any man sick.

Rev Big wrote:

Neither does it record whether he rimmed the bitch.

Cliffhanger then.I hate it when they keep things back for the sequel.

Boatraceface wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Both Harrison and Clapton appeared to have "fidelity" issues. Shame, really, because she seemed to be very committed to making those relationships work.

Did she have a 'two cock gob' it has to be asked?

Did Clapton mention anything specific as to why she was so wonderful in his book? Who would put up with such a disloyal woman like this? Did she give utterly splendid head? I'm baffled.

No, you've got her all wrong, it was Harrison who repeatedly cheated on her, and then Clapton who repeatedly cheated on her. She stayed until it was pointless.

Speaking of Beatles wives, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison are both on CNN now. No idea why, the sound is off (I'm in a cafe).

And now Macca and Ringo are on....

And now it's Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and Olivia....

Not quite the Beatles lineup Yoko had in mind. Almost, but not quite.