• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Letter from Lennon to McCartney surfaces, and it's not pleasant at all.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Parch

Member
A nasty breakup from all involved, but at the time it seemed pretty obvious that John was the really bitter one. This letter is no surprise at all.
 

Neff

Member
Team Paul represent- cooler guy, more talented, better music.

Lennon was a preachy, pretentious hypocrite.

The only Beatle who was an all around decent guy was George and no one remembers him because he wasn't nearly as flashy as the other three. It's a shame.

I'll always remember him for that rad song at the end of Lethal Weapon 2.
 

jstripes

Banned
Team Paul represent- cooler guy, more talented, better music.

Lennon was a preachy, pretentious hypocrite.

You couldn't have Paul without John, and vice versa.

They were both so creatively different, and that's what gave the Beatles such diverse output.
 

phanphare

Banned
You couldn't have Paul without John, and vice versa.

They were both so creatively different, and that's what gave the Beatles such diverse output.

yeah I agree with this, though I'd say Paul and George Martin were the most important Beatles musically given their legacy of making intellectual western music accessible to the masses. however Paul sucks. there's a reason it was the other three Beatles vs. Paul when they broke up.
 

fixedpoint

Member
"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I'll be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first—rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."
I think he's spot on but that ego is definitely showing. It's been far too long since I listened as well, so thanks for this thread. Let it be bros
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Arguing about who was "better" is largely a fool's errand, as they have plenty of sins and its not like fans actually knew them.

That said I vastly prefer McCartney's output post-Beatles.

yeah I agree with this, though I'd say Paul and George Martin were the most important Beatles musically given their legacy of making intellectual western music accessible to the masses. however Paul sucks. there's a reason it was the other three Beatles vs. Paul when they broke up.

Yeah Martin and Epstein were probably the two non-Beatles most crucial to their success. Martin's work on Love shows that he was a really inventive producer.
 

BiggNife

Member
94142-exsqueeze-me-baking-powder-gif-6HMQ.gif

I'm exaggerating a bit, but I think it's fair to say that Lennon, McCartney and Ringo got significantly more exposure than George because of their bombastic personalities. He was kind of an outlier from my understanding.
 

Mawnster

Member
I'm exaggerating a bit, but I think it's fair to say that Lennon, McCartney and Ringo got significantly more exposure than George because of their bombastic personalities. He was kind of an outlier from my understanding.

This is true. Even in their movie 'A Hard Day's Night' they gave Ringo a lot more screen time than they gave George. Maybe it's an unpopular opinion but I've always thought Ringo was one of the most uninteresting, boring dudes in the planet.

Poor George. So underrated.
 

Boem

Member
This is true. Even in their movie 'A Hard Day's Night' they gave Ringo a lot more screen time than they gave George. Maybe it's an unpopular opinion but I've always thought Ringo was one of the most uninteresting, boring dudes in the planet.

Poor George. So underrated.

Nah I'm pretty sure him being the best Beatle is pretty much the average opinion.
 

Reverend Funk

Comfy Penetration
I still can't get over the fact that the beatles is a play on the word beat like the most famous band in history is a stupid fucking pun.
 

dsk1210

Member
The Paul McCartney died in 1966 story was always an intriguing one, although almost 100% bullshit. The guy William that supposedly replaced him was the spitting image of him.
 
Team Paul represent- cooler guy, more talented, better music.

Lennon was a preachy, pretentious hypocrite.

Totally agree with this. It's always been my opinion that when Paul and John worked together, they made the best music in the world. Solo, however, and the faults in them both begin to show. John was the lyrical poet, he wrote things that were interesting and thought provoking. Left to his own devices, though, he became too pretentious and intellectually elitist. And his musical styling just wasn't that catchy or as listenable as Paul's. Paul, for his sake, was an incredible musician. He could weav a unique and beautiful tapestry of sound, effortlessly changing up tempo and feeling until you feel as though the music itself is telling a story. He absolutely sucked at writing lyrics though. So most of the stuff you got from Wings sounded amazing, but had lyrics a 5 year old could have improved upon. It's such a damn shame they couldn't get along. They never could recapture that magic without working together.
 

msdstc

Incredibly Naive
John Lennon was a hypocritical asshole, who abused woman, abandoned and emotionally destroyed his son, was a mediocre musician in terms of pure talent, etc. He stood for NOTHING he preached. I for the life of me, cannot understand how he's so revered.

Edit- for the record Julian lennon himself said Paul was more of a father figure than John ever was
 

Jay Sosa

Member
Well apparently he was an asshole and a wife-beater. Funny hardly anyone ever mentions that.

But if some shitty NFL runningback smacks his girl the internet goes nuts.
 
i get the feeling Paul was a pain to be around. just watching Let It Be makes that clear. watch that movie imagining you are any of the other Beatles. not fun.

the whole breakup thing likewise adds to his legend. he coaxed everyone into staying. Ringo had quit during the White Album. George quit during Let It Be. Paul kept the band together. everyone already had solo albums out during this time. then Paul drops his first solo album and in it is a PR letter declaring the band broken up. that's a pretty shitty thing to do.

imo they should have hired on Yoko and Linda as full time Beatles and then gotten together once a year to make a Beatles album. it's clear from the Plastic Ono Band albums that they were really close to inventing punk/no wave/krautrock and it's clear from the early Paul albums they were close to inventing DIY/indie rock/twee. what could've been may have been incredible and change the face of music.
 
I wouldn't really expect any person to maintain a good attitude when you've gone through that level of success.

People are not made to be that successful
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
We need to go back in time and tell John to change the goddamn ribbon on his typewriter.
 

tanooki27

Member
I've always disliked Paul, and this further cements that. He was always in it for the fame and the money, not for making art. When both John and George did solo works, it was clear that the real songwriting talent was in those two.

Paul is a genius. Neither John's incredible songs, not McCartney's personal conduct, detract from that.
 
Lots of people shitting on people for being people in this thread.

from what it sounds like the Beatles spent most of the early 70s interacting w each other through lawsuits and lawyers, sure enough to put anyone in a bad mood. i bet a lot of these letters are written after another long day deliberating over the legal breakup of the band.

they still loved each other. Ringo and John played together all the time, at least on the early John/Yoko albums. George hung out w Ringo and helped write/record his first hits. and of course Paul and John got together w Stevie Wonder one night and had a coke-fueled jam session.

the music press loves a rivalry tho!
 
Lol. Basically this.

Whatever John had to say about Paul, pretty clear he went off the deep end and became impossible to work with.

Like there's a difference between Art and allowing your Girlfriend to come into the recording studio and masterbate under the piano while screaming your name. And then getting pissed off at your friends for being completely uncomfortable with the situation

What the fuck lol
 

FyreWulff

Member
from what it sounds like the Beatles spent most of the early 70s interacting w each other through lawsuits and lawyers, sure enough to put anyone in a bad mood. i bet a lot of these letters are written after another long day deliberating over the legal breakup of the band.

they still loved each other. Ringo and John played together all the time, at least on the early John/Yoko albums. George hung out w Ringo and helped write/record his first hits. and of course Paul and John got together w Stevie Wonder one night and had a coke-fueled jam session.

the music press loves a rivalry tho!

Their manager basically kept them from eating each other alive. When Epstein died it was all over.
 

Avalanche

Member
The Lennon-penned Beatles songs are the best by far.

McCartney has the better solo work.

I call a draw.

I think the opposite is true. The Beatles seemed to kept in check McCartney's more saccharine side and Lennon's raw emotional side (to a degree). Songs like Mother and God are some of Lennon's best work and you wouldn't find them anywhere near a Beatles record.
 

Cat Party

Member
John Lennon was a hypocritical asshole, who abused woman, abandoned and emotionally destroyed his son, was a mediocre musician in terms of pure talent, etc. He stood for NOTHING he preached. I for the life of me, cannot understand how he's so revered.

Edit- for the record Julian lennon himself said Paul was more of a father figure than John ever was

This guy gets it.
 

Rell

Member
I think the opposite is true. The Beatles seemed to kept in check McCartney's more saccharine side and Lennon's raw emotional side (to a degree). Songs like Mother and God are some of Lennon's best work and you wouldn't find them anywhere near a Beatles record.

I entirely agree with this.

John is my favorite Beatle. Maybe I wouldn't like to be around him, but his asshole swagger and flair for safe experimentation made him an awesome public persona.

I don't really get how John can claim all these avant garde tendencies when there were guys like Captain Beefheart around who were really doing it up.

But Plastic Ono band is probably my favorite thing anyone involved with the Beatles has ever made.

That's the enduring legacy of the Beatles, though; everyone has a different opinion of what exactly it was that made the band great.
 

FyreWulff

Member
I've always gotten the impression that both Lennon and McCartney (while both incredibly talented in their own ways) were conceited egomaniacs.

The only Beatle who was an all around decent guy was George and no one remembers him because he wasn't nearly as flashy as the other three. It's a shame.

John was the political loudmouth look at me guy

Paul was the businessman who actually wanted to eat

George slept with all their wives

Ringo was the chaperone
 

Window

Member
John was the political loudmouth look at me guy

Paul was the businessman who actually wanted to eat

George slept with all their wives

Ringo was the chaperone

I don't know whether this is meant to be taken literally or what it means if not.
 

Switch Back 9

a lot of my threads involve me fucking up somehow. Perhaps I'm a moron?
Not of fan of the band by any metric so my opinion doesn't mean much, but John Lennon seems like such an unbearably obnoxious asshole in every respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom