h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

can someone please tell me why the birthday(oct 9)& the death(dec 8)of the single most influential musician britain & possibly the world has ever produced is repeatedly ignored by the bbc year after year.most years around august 16 we get crap elvis films on the beeb and he was a total parody of himself.john lennon on the other hand was a brutally honest man,both about himself & others.there must be loads of stuff in the archives about the great man and the beatles that could be edited into a decent programme.does anyone have any thoughts on this?

As a Scouser - good point!

Thanks for the reminder! Our local paper had something - a brief paragraph...
But I still remember the shock of coming home from the cinema on 9th December 1980, and hearing about it on the radio. I was totally stunned.
To John Lennon

John was indeed a symbol -



















which was dead handy for Ringo!

I have recently received a load of stuff that was stored in my Dad's attic, which includes one opf each main British Paper published after his murder. I would like to know, why he was classified as murdered and not assassinated?

I think you'll find that an assasination has to have a political motivation.

Still, a for John.

Liam.

The guy was unique - unfortunately.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the fascination. Lennon was a good songwriter before 1967-ish, but paled into introspection and mediocrity very quickly.

I certainly wouldn't class him as the most influential British musician, not ahead of Ray Davies.

Frankly, I think Mark Chapman had the right idea.



B

Don't yet . . .

To prove (in a roundabout and mostly irrational way - all right, it's not a proof, but read it anyway) that Lennon was a good musician:

1) The Beatles were a great band.
2) This greatness was principally due to the songrwiting duo Lennon and McCartney.
3) McCartney didn't/doesn't write very good songs on his own, but Lennon did.

So, my conclusion is that Lennon had the greatest songwriting talent among the Beatles, so he was the major contributor to the Beatles, so he must have been the greatest part of a truly legendary band . . .this made a lot more sense earlier, when I was thinking about it. Maybe this whole post is just an excuse to point out what an undistinguished solo career McCartney had.

I don't think either of them had particularly impressive solo careers to be honest. In fact none of the Beatles were any better solo than as a group.

Lennon & McCartney's songwriting abilities are beyond question, but obviously they needed each other there to produce anything of value.

B

"1) The Beatles were a great band.
2) This greatness was principally due to the songrwiting duo Lennon and McCartney.
3) McCartney didn't/doesn't write very good songs on his own, but Lennon did."

Well,I'd say in answer to 3) that Lennon wrote a great deal of utter bilge, interspersed with the odd gem like Working Class Hero and Just Like Starting Over, while McCartney doesm iddle of the road stuff better than Lennon's bilge but not as good as his gems.

So I don't really think either of them were very impressive solo, and neither were as good post-Beatles as George harrison.

I believe most Pairings fail when working solo.

How many of these artists had a succesful solo career?

1) Gilbert and Sullivan
2) Rodgers and Hammerstein
3) Lerner and Lowe et al.

BTW, as a Beatles fan, some of the music is great, most average, and some poor (Why don't we do it in the road.....PlllEEAAAsssseee!)

Well, Rodgers was successful both with Hart and with Hammerstein . . . so you could surmise that Rodgers' career didn't depend on a particular lyricist, as long as he had one.

If I'm not mistaken, the song you mentioned is a McCartney song. In my experience (WARNING: UNFAIR GENERALIZATIONS AHEAD), the vast majority of the great Beatles lyrics (A Day in the Life, I am the Walrus, Lucy in the Sky w/ Diamonds, etc) are credited to Lennon, as are most of the really great tunes. The vast majority of the really, really terrible Beatles songs were/are all McCartney's fault.

No. The Beatles really, really terrible songs (Yellow Submarine and Octopuses Garden to name but two) were Ringo's fault.

I'm not sure any of the above mentioned lyrics qualify as great, being as how they are all drug-influenced b*ll*cks. For really good Beatles lyrics you want to look to Lady Madonna, Eleanor Rigby or Get Back (apologies for quoting the obvious ones).

B

Dean Martin and JERRY LEWIS
Sonny and CHER
PUNCH and Judy


~jwf~

Ooohh dear ~jwf~

You may have opened a can of worms with that.

Peaches and Cream.
Pepsi and Shirley.
Chas and Dave.
Renee and Renata.
Tinga and Tucker.

Noooo, enough.....

IMO Mcartney is now famous just for being famous. He hasn't done anything noteworthy for years.

As for the 60s, I enjoy the Beatles music immensely but I don't think they did anything that compares with the Brian Wilson output on Pet Sounds and the Smile sessions.