Log In
Register
5.12pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline
Ron Nasty said
Oh, I know that @Necko, John said it himself in those last interviews, I just hear more Holly in his vocal. I accept that that’s pretty much just me…
Mind if I join you? To me, the chorus sounds very much like Holly.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
7.19pm
8 January 2015
Offline
Definitely has the Buddy Ohhs, an irresistible hook. The thing I find outstanding about his voice is the natural authority it has, how you pay attention to a voice like that regardless of the words. How it holds together music that runs on the groove and the intent and little else, that’s fascinating to me. I Don’t Wanna Be A Soldier Mama is a great example. He could do an amazing amount with the simplest elements, and the voice made it all work.
The following people thank ewe2 for this post:
BeatlebugI'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 
but I may have to get more specific in the future.
3.30am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline 
Yip, there is an obvious Buddy sound to parts of the song.
Going slightly off topic, it was interesting to read that John opted for ‘(Just Like) Starting Over’ to be the lead off not because he felt it was the strongest track but because it was more apt to the circumstance. I’m sure many artists would have went for what they felt was the strongest single off their long awaited returning album. Which begs the question – what would have been the strongest lead off single from ‘Double Fantasy ‘? Or was it ‘(Just Like) Starting Over’?
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
6.41am
8 January 2015
Offline I would have thought Woman or Beautiful Boy they’re both strong songs. I like Watching The Wheels but it doesn’t feel as commercial a song. But album sequencing is a weird subject, and many cooks spoil the broth.
I'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 but I may have to get more specific in the future.
2.59pm
3 November 2015
Offline I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions on this. 🙂 What is the difference between talent and genius (if there is one), and what fulfillment for yourself vs. others can that bring a person (namely, what it brought John)?
It’s evident that all of the Beatles had great talent vocally and instrumentally, etc. However, there’s a stark contrast to singing well to treading new grounds and exploring ideas that are different or even against the grain. I feel that all of the Beatles demonstrated this characteristic, but John was the worst at hiding it because he really didn’t want to. The Jesus comment, sports comment, drug experimentation, song lyric connotation, and bed peace are some examples of this.
So, what do ya’ll think?
Only music can save us.
3.57pm
18 April 2013
Offline If I understand your question correctly:
Talent is technical skill.
Genius is using one’s imagination to create or contribute something new to humanity.
Neither one can bring personal fulfillment.
The following people thank Expert Textpert for this post:
Beatlebug"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
4.11pm
3 November 2015
Offline @Expert Textpert What about music brought John fulfillment, then? Would writing/playing it fit into those categories? Or would you say it doesn’t at all?
Only music can save us.
4.45pm
18 April 2013
Offline KaleidoscopeMusic said
What about music brought John fulfillment, then? Would writing/playing it fit into those categories? Or would you say it doesn’t at all?
Well, I think John had a psychological need to prove himself so that others would accept him. His success probably came out of a very strong insecurity and feeling of emptiness, resulting from the death of his mother and being abandoned by his father. But I think by the time he died, he had realized that family is more important than fame. I think all of The Beatles enjoyed fame for a time, then faced the deeper questions of life or tried to run away from those questions through substance abuse (except for Paul, who is still happy to be famous, LOL).
The following people thank Expert Textpert for this post:
Beatlebug, KaleidoscopeMusic"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
5.13pm
8 January 2015
Offline KaleidoscopeMusic said
I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions on this. 🙂 What is the difference between talent and genius (if there is one), and what fulfillment for yourself vs. others can that bring a person (namely, what it brought John)?
Let’s take a simple example, a cover song. Talent is being able to recreate that really well. Genius is taking that and doing something new with it which reveals that it was something else in the first place. In that sense the Beatles both “covered” rocknroll and reinvented it, particularly John. But I don’t think fulfilment has anything to do with talent or genius. People started making the cultural assumption that genius required tragedy a few centuries ago because it’s a better story, but that’s rubbish and leads to over/underrating people.
I’m being a bit post-modernist here: it’s important to avoid the trap of mythologising someone in order to understand or even just admire their work. Lennon is particularly dangerous and seductive in this way. And Lennon was very specifically a rocknroll guy: he got it in a very deep sense, he wasn’t a blues guy or a soul guy. And he showed how much life the rocknroll form had in it in new contexts that were entirely unexpected and took you along with him before you realized it, and that’s genius. He could make rocknroll poetry and I suspect that’s how he saw it. We’ve discovered that all the detail in the world about the inner life of an author won’t get you any nearer to understanding his or her productions and there are many other contexts which are at least or more useful than that. I think “rocknroll poet” gets closer to Lennon than “bookends of tragedy”.
The following people thank ewe2 for this post:
KaleidoscopeMusic, Beatlebug, UnidentifiedFiendishThingyI'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 but I may have to get more specific in the future.
2.52am
21 November 2015
Offline 
The following people thank Sparky77 for this post:
KaleidoscopeMusic4.00pm
3 November 2015
Offline @Sparky77 This seems like it would be such an exciting read. I love combining what “what if’s” of fiction with facts. But I looked at the description and it’s talking about John getting into politics, which seems out of character. He was an advocate of world peace who probably would have been better than many politicians today, but that would mean he’d never be a politician. Feel free to disagree, but when a description of a book eludes to a Beatle being in the White House, it sort of reminds me of what Kanye West is doing. Besides, it talks about a “Beatle” being in the White House, when this story is supposed to be about John. I just feel if an author going to explore what could have happened if someone hadn’t died, they’d include something useful involving his own dignity.
You know what they say…. If you want something written, do it yourself. Beatles Bible forum people might have to collaborate on this one.
The following people thank KaleidoscopeMusic for this post:
Beatlebug, Sparky77Only music can save us.
7.23pm
21 November 2015
Offline KaleidoscopeMusic said
@Sparky77 This seems like it would be such an exciting read. I love combining what “what if’s” of fiction with facts. But I looked at the description and it’s talking about John getting into politics, which seems out of character. He was an advocate of world peace who probably would have been better than many politicians today, but that would mean he’d never be a politician. Feel free to disagree, but when a description of a book eludes to a Beatle being in the White House, it sort of reminds me of what Kanye West is doing. Besides, it talks about a “Beatle” being in the White House, when this story is supposed to be about John. I just feel if an author going to explore what could have happened if someone hadn’t died, they’d include something useful involving his own dignity.You know what they say…. If you want something written, do it yourself. Beatles Bible forum people might have to collaborate on this one.
I’m not sure. I get what you’re saying but based on what Fred Seaman (and I know there are mixed opinions about this guy) said in an interview about John, his opinions about certain things were changing as he got older. He favoured Reagan over Carter, and was expressing slightly more conservative opinions that suggested politically, he was leaning a little more towards the centre-right. Based on a couple of interview quotes from 1980, it seems he was a little embarrassed about some of the campaigning he did in the early ’70s. That he was doing it out of a sense of guilt because he was a wealthy man. I might be interpreting it wrong of course. And although Seaman is dodgy, I do believe that John would have changed in ways that none of us could probably have predicted. He was only 40 years old after all, and there was much more to come. Not to say he would have gone into politics (who knows?) but one thing he never was was boring. I like to think he would have surprised us into his old age – both good and bad. And that’s where writers can step in and have some fun with the possibilities 🙂
The following people thank Sparky77 for this post:
Beatlebug, KaleidoscopeMusic7.19pm
3 November 2015
Offline Either way, we should all read it when it comes out!
Only music can save us.
10.12pm
3 November 2015
Offline Is it just me being paranoid or does John become almost too skinny for his body type post-Beatles?
Only music can save us.
7.33am
1 November 2013
Offline 
KaleidoscopeMusic said
Is it just me being paranoid or does John become almost too skinny for his body type post-Beatles?
He did lose a lot of weight near the end of his life. He was on some diet.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
KaleidoscopeMusic
5.23pm
15 March 2010
Offline Ooh hello! It’s time for my bi-decennial post….
Huff Po reporting tonight on people who’ve refused New Year’s Honours.
John was obviously mentioned.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry….._hp_ref=uk
But neither Joe nor I could recognise the picture used of him, we both thought it looked like someone dressed up as him.
Does anyone know where this could be from?
See you in 5 years!
Ellie XXX (wife of Joe)
The following people thank Ellie for this post:
Joe, Necko, Starr Shine?, Beatlebug, natureaker, Ahhh Girl, georgiewood, trcanberra5.43pm
8 August 2014
Offline Hi there @Ellie. Nice to see you around again.
I do agree with you and Joe that this image is like a fake so I decided to take the image and put it into Tineye and Google image search
I found another site that referenced the image saying it says the picture was taken in 1972 http://archive.argusleader.com…..g-radicals
But I found this site here which says its related to John’s deportation in 1972 http://www.apimages.com/Collec…..2396166a96
Looks like it might be legit though since its on the AP site.
Hope that helps.
The following people thank UnidentifiedFiendishThingy for this post:
JoeLook its a thingy! A fiendish thingy!
5.50pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline There is a similar picture which is definitely John and he is wearing the exact same clothes minus the tie (below) so would presume its genuine.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Joe, UnidentifiedFiendishThingy"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
5.56pm
31 March 2008
Offline
Ooh thanks. So it is legit. We thought it looked like a dodgy tribute performer.
I don’t think I’ve seen the pic before, and John didn’t have hair like that for long. He looked different on the Dick Cavett show which was recorded around the same time. I wonder why HuffPo chose such an awful image.
Assuming the caption is correct, the pic is from 12 May 1972, during John’s immigration hearing. Keith Badman’s book doesn’t have anything for that date (I don’t have a copy of Lennonology yet but I’d imagine it’s more comprehensive).
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
5.58pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline ellie @Joe
Hope the two of you had a good Christmas.
The picture was taken on 12 May 1972 as John answered a few questions for the press when he arrived at the US Immigration and Naturalization Offices in Lower Manhattan for a hearing into their case.
The more familiar pictures are of them leaving after the hearing, by which time he’s put on a tie. You can see John’s wearing the same shirt and jacket in both.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Joe, Beatlebug, UnidentifiedFiendishThingy"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
