New book claims John Lennon was an abusive deviant.

Overrated, yes.

Oh, HELL yes, as evidenced by this:

Crap, no way.

Unless you're talking about the various songs with "Yoko" in the title.

 

As long as the beat is good.

Ringo's not that bad a singer.

 

I was talking about Yoko. But you knew that.

 

Silence, meanypants jerkface who not only posted this, but took the time to post this while sitting in the stands at a game I had no hope of attending.

Rush is superior to many. Dammit.

Also: Yoko's singing reminds me of Snow White from the old Disney movie. "Sooommmeeee-daaaayyyyyaaayyyyy myyyy prinnceeeee weeilllllllllll commmeeee. . "

With that voice, lady, I'll be shocked if he can even get it up.

(Thanks, I'll be here all week).

 

Funny - they both remind me of Geddy Lee.

 

I like her better than Rush.

 

Comparing Lennon and McCartney post-Beatles is ridiculous, at least in terms of tangible proof. Lennon had a few nice tunes, but for the better part of a decade, McCartney cranked out hits.

"My Love," "Live and Let Die," "Helen Wheels," "Jet," "Band on the Run," "Listen to What the Man Said," "Silly Love Songs," "Maybe I'm Amazed," "With a Little Luck," "Uncle Albert," "Let 'Em In," "Coming Up," "No More Lonely Nights" and "Another Day" were all top-10 hits. Seven went to No. 1. I'd say that's a pretty good run. (Throw in his three hits with Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder and the list grows.) I had to look that up. I'd forgotten about some of that stuff, along with how good it really was/is.

Lennon had a small handful of top 10 hits with three No. 1s, but nothing even close to what McCartney did. None of this of course means one was better than the other, but certainly the public loved Paul's work.

McCartney was a genius at writing pop songs that while maybe never being confused with the greatest music of all time, or even "Imagine" (which interestingly did not hit No. 1) were loved by huge audiences. Of that list, most of them hold up very well (except for the three songs written with Jacko and Stevie.)

Working against McCartney is the fact he has spent 25 years writing crap, which works very hard at eclipsing the wonderful stuff he did from 1971-80.

As for the notion that, had he lived, Lennon would somehow be opening for REO Speedwagon at the Oklahoma State Fair, well, McCartney has toured relatively regularly throughout the 40 post-Beatles years, always playing sold-out arenas if not stadiums. I have to believe Lennon would have done the same, had he wanted.

 

"You Light Up My Life" was No. 1 for like 100 weeks. "Popular with the public" doesn't really mean that much sometimes.

BTW, "Silly Love Songs" gave him a nice head start on writing crap.

 

I don't equate "hit" with "good." The Who had zero No. 1 hits in the States. And they're crap, right?

What's more popular isn't always better. See "Two And A Half Men" vs. "Arrested Development."

 

I'll be the first to agree that plenty of crap tops the charts. But that type of consistency over a long period of time is tough to argue with.

And like I said, most of it holds up well. Most of McCartney's 70s hits still get good airplay. When was the last time you heard "You Light Up My Life"?

 

Probably on some late-night infomercial for "Shit of the '70s."

And major props for the "No More Lonely Nights" mention. That gets overlooked, b/c it came out during the Spies Like Us era of suck and was the theme to some terrible acid trip of a movie, but that is a GREAT pop song.

 

SPIES LIKE US DID NOT SUCK!