[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Fred was great but imo John Lennon went beyond in virtually all aspects. Except that Fred sang better and was a better piano player, but John was better composer, lyricist, guitarist, bassist, arranger, painter, etc.[/QUOTE]
Only a far poorer individual. But a better person when it came to writing lyrics that actually MATTERED. And he didn't play South Africa during the apartheid.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
"Only a far poorer individual."
I don't think John ever gave anyone HIV.
Now now, no need to come down on me with Lennon's life story, I know the ugly bits. I'm just saying - it's very easy to say things about famous folk when we can focus in on just about any part of their life because it's been blown up for all to see. They both had incredibly human moments - the word 'human' not always being a necessarily positive one.
As for who is the better rockstar..... Haha. You know what? I'd really say John Lennon because The Beatles were more about rock'n'roll. You know... THAT kind of rock and roll? Queen did rock, no doubts there, but I mean - it was different. Both bands dabbled in a shitload of areas, but The Beatles were closer to 'old time rock and roll' than Queen ever were.
(It's always struck me as faintly ironic that Bob Seger's tune 'Old Time Rock and Roll' really doesn't like any such thing at all).
Problem is, in a discussion like this, while one is asserting that x is better than y, it's very easy to sound like one is saying y is not very good. Which is total nonsense in this discussion - look who we're comparing. Hello McFly, anyone home?! Lennon! Mercury! Lennon made a bigger impact than Mercury (be it through talent or marketing) and then Mercury got inspired and had his turn at making a completely different kind of impact.
It's like comparing apples and oranges - JUST EAT THEM BOTH.
I don't think John ever gave anyone HIV.
Now now, no need to come down on me with Lennon's life story, I know the ugly bits. I'm just saying - it's very easy to say things about famous folk when we can focus in on just about any part of their life because it's been blown up for all to see. They both had incredibly human moments - the word 'human' not always being a necessarily positive one.
As for who is the better rockstar..... Haha. You know what? I'd really say John Lennon because The Beatles were more about rock'n'roll. You know... THAT kind of rock and roll? Queen did rock, no doubts there, but I mean - it was different. Both bands dabbled in a shitload of areas, but The Beatles were closer to 'old time rock and roll' than Queen ever were.
(It's always struck me as faintly ironic that Bob Seger's tune 'Old Time Rock and Roll' really doesn't like any such thing at all).
Problem is, in a discussion like this, while one is asserting that x is better than y, it's very easy to sound like one is saying y is not very good. Which is total nonsense in this discussion - look who we're comparing. Hello McFly, anyone home?! Lennon! Mercury! Lennon made a bigger impact than Mercury (be it through talent or marketing) and then Mercury got inspired and had his turn at making a completely different kind of impact.
It's like comparing apples and oranges - JUST EAT THEM BOTH.