Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by C C, Aug 1, 2013.
If you do not know, I certainly don't
Well that's relief.
Well praise Jesus!!!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Exactly you don't know why. I don't need you to tell me which songs were written by John, Paul, George, or Ringo. You presumptuous twit.
Not sure what why I don't know exactly, nor where specifically I "presume" to tell you who wrote what; nevertheless, there are plenty of well-documented books which deign to inform us on such matters--would you like citations? You may not like such on account of punctuation and whatnots.
Apparently Roman Polanski is, however--who knew?
Books that document that John was a hack? That's what I'm getting at. I don't need some clueless crank to tell me who was brilliant and who wasn't. It's in the music. John was 'out front' with his politics. To my delight.
Is there anyone that actually liked Wings?
Apparently Paul is a good guy since he renounced his LSD use and found Jesus while John was a 'hack', running his mouth, the devil incarnate.
Following the opening act was pretty difficult in this case. Some of John's best came during his very short solo career.
You must have missed the part about the "wack theory" in a subsequent post:
IOW: I am engaging in a bit of hyperbole and fanciful flight.
Seriously though, '66-'70 were the Beatles most creatively fertile period (IMO)--do you agree? And a lot of testimony from The Beatles themselves, as well as associates--Mal Evans, et al--suggests that from about late '67 onwards, John was kinda... absent, distracted, disinterested, lazy. This stuff is pretty well documented. I think this most apparent on the White Album; there's undoubtably some good John tracks there, but he also seemed to be going a bit overboard with the whole "Uhhhh--I'm so strung out, man" thing.
Re: his politics. He never seemed all that consistent, and--if you consider his actual life--rather hypocritical at times: he didn't treat Yoko terribly well, and he certainly didn't treat Cynthia that great either. Then there's the whole Brian Epstein thing: John--and noone else--could never seem to accept Epstein's homosexuality, and on many an occassion, he was downright cruel towards Epstein.
Also, you mention above his very brief solo career--what was that all about? I mean, why so short?
Part of it is that I was always a bit irked by what seemed almost cult-like adoration of Lennon--especially following his death. Few seemed to care about his many, and serious (i.e., spousal abuse), problematic attributes.
In short, I don't really think John was a "hack," but I do think his contributions during the Beatles later--and better --period were growing few and far between, and a lot of it was a little weak IMO.
Is that what Mr. Tull is getting at? I kinda got the impression that he meant "born again" in some other sense: some occult nonsense, or some such thing.
Separate names with a comma.