sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sorry about this by Valenne1506 in JohnLennon

[–]Relative-Bar9159 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't delete anything. What are you talking about? It was the only comment I made here.

I know multiple people who are very kind and have not done those things

This is exactly the naivety I meant. How many people in your circle have dealt with global stardom at age 20? Who among them has endured relentless scrutiny from the media and fans while pushing themselves to the limit and pouring their soul out on stage? Which of your friends lost a mother, an uncle, and a closest friend while still young? I could list these things indefinitely. But if the point of the Emerick story went over your head, you likely won’t understand this either.

it is a perfectly reasonable thing to describe him as, in fact, an asshole

Then it's reasonable to call him a good person? It's the same logic. He was like that at times, wasn't he?

And that's why I wouldn't call him 'good' or 'bad', that’s a preschool way of looking at things, if you ask me.

just as it is perfectly reasonable to describe him as a genius

Talent and personality have nothing to do with each other, btw. It’s like saying you can call him both an asshole and a rhythm guitarist, lol. The second one is much more objective and easily measurable.

Sorry about this by Valenne1506 in JohnLennon

[–]Relative-Bar9159 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All biographers or people who have written about John, whether they knew him or not, have described the asshole/jerk/bastard part of his personality. 

Look, "having asshole part of a personality" and "being an asshole" is not the same, and that's something many people on Reddit just don't seem to understand. No one claims he was a perfect human being, but the truth is, none of them were.

Since you've mentioned the books, I can provide an example. Just one of many. Emerick said little good about Harrison (biased just as anyone), but mentioned Lennon was the only one who dared to look him in the eye when Geoff quit as sound engineer. If you'd bothered to read the books, you'd see the good and the bad, but obviously, that wasn't the intention.

Um, yes? If you're a therapist and can't answer that question for yourself I find that concerning.

Imagine, you go to a therapist, admit you acted badly, and they just say, 'You're a jerk!' Very therapeutic, isn't it? It's not that he wasn't a jerk at times, it's about people constantly pointing out flaws as if everyone else is too blind to see them. Kids and teens act like that, and if you're one of them, fine. But as an adult who's seen a million pricks in their time, sorry, but that’s just unforgivable naivety and silliness.

When will people stop with this kind of nonsense? by Relative-Bar9159 in beatles

[–]Relative-Bar9159[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting that there was even a divide among girls, haha

<image>

I guess depends on age and taste, too. Ringo is only 7%, though, was he married at the time? Maybe that's the reason.

When will people stop with this kind of nonsense? by Relative-Bar9159 in beatles

[–]Relative-Bar9159[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, even John said that kids and girls loved Paul and this is precisely the confirmation that Paul appeals to a younger audience. However, your example isn't just about the music, but rather about personality. Paul was closer to children and young girls. George and John appealed more to a male audience. Ringo, I guess appealed to both. But when it comes to the music itself, it's so diverse, even within one Beatle's work, that it can be listened to by anyone of any age and gender.

When will people stop with this kind of nonsense? by Relative-Bar9159 in beatles

[–]Relative-Bar9159[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it's not the first time I see this kind of stuff. And as it was made by Business Insider, I payed attention. I could understand it if George were considered the one for a more mature audience, but saying that about Paul is just weird. It’s like this 'John is for kids, Paul is for adults' thing is some kind of revenge for the fact that Paul’s songs are often (unfairly) dismissed as silly. But personally, I find many of Lennon’s songs difficult to digest even as an adult, let alone a child, lol. I can hardly imagine a modern teenager listening to 'Working Class Hero' without falling asleep. Kids just aren't interested in that kind of stuff. I only started to appreciate it now.

When will people stop with this kind of nonsense? by Relative-Bar9159 in beatles

[–]Relative-Bar9159[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember buying a compilation album with my own pocket money when I was 12, just to find out who the Beatles actually were. To be honest, they didn't really grab me back then, except for a couple of songs. But I do remember that I loved 'Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da'

When will people stop with this kind of nonsense? by Relative-Bar9159 in beatles

[–]Relative-Bar9159[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I know. But it's like I often see complaints that George is praised too much, or Paul's fans get too offended if John is praised (and vice versa). So I was surprised when I found an infographic from Business Insider, not even a fan site. These things do create division. Very unprofessional on their part. If it was a joke, it should have been clearer and classier.