30 years ago today....

[B00]

John Lennon died.

Now, my question is, was he re\ally that much of a genius as some claim? Or are we looking at him through rosy tinted specs since he was shot?

Come ot think of it, singularly, were any of The Beatles good? Or was it them coming together as they did that made them so magical?

And lastly- if they were starting out now, as a boyband, do you think they's make it?

[Bbbananas]

I think the reason they were so phenomenally successful was partly due to timing... I liked a lot of their music, but wouldn't say they were my favourite band ever, or musical geniuses... (genuii?)

Today, I don't think they;d be thought of as anything special - they were in the right place, at the right time, with the right music and the right image.

Lovely ballads though....

[B00]

Ace answer Salla, ive marked your reply as Best Answer (well actually, it's the only one-lol), so lets see if you get a prize eh?

Do you reckon John was a genius then? Or do you think because he died, we're over egging it a bit?

[tigerlelly]

Tend to agree with salla.
John Lennon, in my opinion, was a nasty piece of work; just look at the way he treated his first wife and their sun Julian. 'Imagine' is as cynical a lyric as I have ever heard coming from someone who wouldn't even share his money with his own son.

[flip_flop]

I am an avid music fan, and at one point was quite a serious collector (10,000 + CDs and now have 20,000+ songs on my iPod) - I like to think I've got a varied taste and to paraphrase Bowie I can generally find something good in any old rubbish. With the exception of C&W, which I find dire.

However, I've never 'got' The Beatles - they are, at best, OK.

I'm sure people will say I'm wrong and that The Beatles and Lennon were musical demi-gods, but they've never floated my boat.

The Beatles and The Stones started at the same(ish) time, and for my money The Beatles weren't good enough to polish the boots of The Stones.

[Bbbananas]

Slightly, yes. When famous people die suddenly, or violently like he did, I think sometimes their reputations go sky high and they are revered more than if they'd just popped their clogs the natural way....

[jackthehat]

1. He helped compose some tuneful ditties.
2. I believe we are.
3. They were good and ahead of their time.
4. There was a great deal of serendipity around their formation and early success.
5. I think so - There's the cheeky one, the shy one, the gobby one, the moody one........

[zzxxee]

i am not a beatles or john lennon fan
i like one or two of their songs but never understood the whole beatelmania thing

[ummmm]

Beatles were brilliant. Some of their songs, If we didn't already know them, could be hits in 2010 in my opinion.

Of the fab 5...John Lennon was definitely the main man :-)

[B00]

I like some of their songs, the earlier "boy band" stuff, y'know, the happy tunes etc. Not a massive fan of their more hippyish tunes.

And whilst it's terribly sad that John died the way he did, and so young, I can't help but think the adulation he still gets is unjustified.

Together, they, at the time, were unstoppable, but singularly? Meh!

[zzxxee]

fab 4 wasnt it ummmm ? x

[ummmm]

JL did some fantastic songs...

Working class hero is one of my favourite songs.

[ummmm]

Yep...lol

[zzxxee]

:)

[ummmm]

In my defense....I'm not long awake.

You say you like one or two of their songs....but how many albums have you actually listened to?

[starone]

I could never understand their popularity and think that most of it was clever hype. At their live concerts you couldn't hear a word due to the screaming of their followers. I suppose all their fans just wanted to say they had been there and had actually seen them, although not heard them. Perhaps they arrived at a time when the young needed somebody to worship - "I touched the hem of his garment."

[zzxxee]

my mum was a huge beatles fan and i was bought up on their music she still has loads on vinyl.
I suppose lucy in the sky with diamonds is my fav
i prefered george harrison as a solo artist

[Davethedog]

Your perception of the Beatles depends on your age. In 1963 the were a breath of fresh air, a focal point for everyone in Britain, then the world. They were innovative not just in music, but in fashion and life style. No one before or since, with the possible exception of Elvis, has had such an impact on the social life of the world. Then in 1967, they revoloutionised music again taking the focal point in music from singles to album's.

Music is a personal thing, one man's genius is another man's minger. If you view the Beatles as musicians then they get chewed up because they have been so immitated and in some cases surpassed and they have aged.

You have to view the Beatles as the social phenomenon they were, not just as musicians, to fully appreciate why they are held in such reverance.

If they hadn't arrived theres would in all probability never have been many of the inovations of the 60's and therefore these things wouldn't of evolved down to what we have today.

Maybe you had to be there but the Beatles really did change the world.

John Lennon was a nasty scumbag and didn't change until Yoko, but he wrote some cracking tunes.

[B00]

Great answer dave :-)

Yes, guess you're right. You had to be of the times to fully appreciate them, and the stir they caused.

I wasn't born till 1970, and by then, they'd faded, and no longer had the impact they did throughout the 60's.

And when he was shot, i was 10 and it really didn't register on my scale at all. I knew who he was of course, but that was about it.

[jaydah]

Their guitar chords & arrangements were mostly 'off the scale' for guitarists and very innovative musically for the time.