The great Lennon debate?

Question

I know, but please, i would like to hear what you think.

Was John Lennon as good as he is made out to be?
John Lennon wrote some ultra-personal stuff that was interesting but not necessarily good music. "Mother," "God (the acoustic one is great, but the studio one is...not).
"I feel so suicidal just like Dylan's Mr. Jones" is a horribly pathetic line. (Yer Blues, White Album). The song would've been better without the Dylan thing.

Lastly, does anyone else think John would've been better without the whole "artiste" thing?

Is John a better musician than:

Paul?
George?
Bob Dylan?


...Morrissey?

The question mark at the top makes this question look idiotic.

(I mean ***was***)

Answer 1

Scruffycat, if John was your least favourite Beatle then you are obviously insane.

John wrote always in the 1st person, and the song Mother was like all his music, his own form of therapy to deal with his horrific childhood, and being forced to choose between 2 alcoholic parents at aged 3. He was no better a musician than Paul or George and he very rarely finished a song, but what he did do was begin one song and get bored so fast he gave it to Paul to touch up. Paul certainly had more disciplin because John had a mind that could not sit still unless the project was pulling out his best. He was a wonderful plagerist, and made no apologies. He studied the black music of the USA intensely stealing many ideas. He stole his famous scream from Chuck Berry. So many studies and books have been wrote about this man because he had something all the other Beatles lacked, and we have yet to find the word for that something. His politics were insane, radical, but simple, and he could talk with the best of politicians. He was a forceful character, with a beautiful side and and intensely dark side. He hurt many people in his short life, basically abandoning his son Julian. He talked so much about love, but he was destroyed for the lack of it. Zimmerman was okay, but is sometimes very over rated.

For best lyrics, yes Lennon beats Zimmerman because he kept it simple and beautiful. Morrissey has some astounding lyrics, and is also a great performer, but he is no John Lennon. Paul was a genius in his own right, and he was equal on par with John, but everyone just seemed to lack that one extra thing John Lennon had. Maybe it was his broken heart that he wore on his arrogant sleeve that made him a marvel.

Answer 2

I almost don't feel this question deserve an answer. But eh..

Yes John was great. Though he was a little insane, he was still a genius..and that is why his writing was so amazing. As well as just him in general. I've never liked Paul much, he's a greedy sod, or seems to be, but he was also a great artist. I have many favorite songs that Paul wrote. George has always been my personal favorite and also the one I found most attractive out of the four, but I still find John Lennon incredible. I prefer his music to any of the others. "Mother", has always given me goosebumps, as well as many other songs of his.

John, and the Beatles as a whole have stood the test of time. I believe they'll continue to do so.

For the person above...I hate Yoko, but I don't think the fact that she can't sing whatsoever, makes him bad.
-Bah, I hate her and I still love John.

Answer 3

It depends who else is in the balloon really. Or don't you know that beforehand? If Lennon was sharing a balloon with great scientists like Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Nikola Tesla then I would have to concede defeat and chuck Lennon over the side, even if he did write some nice tunes. If on the other hand he's sharing it with Jedward and Rick Astley then it's a no brainer really.

Answer 4

John Lennon had a unique personal style that is one of those things where you like it or hate it. Not much in between, sort of like the Dylan thing. He, also is a unique artist with a particularly different style and you like or dont like. Since music is subjective its all a matter of personal taste. I liked John Lennon, but only a few of his songs. Sometimes I thought his stuff was just too deep and dark. But he is my favorite Beatle and I do miss him. Who knows, had he lived, he might have some fantastic sounds out.

Answer 5

I'm sort of biased as my favorites are the Beatles. I think John, Paul & George are all excllent musicians, sometimes better than each other at different times in their careers. I'm beginning to appreciate Bob Dylan and think he might be somewhat better than John, Paul & George. I love Dylan's latest CD and am now picking up his earlier stuff.

Answer 6

I was never a Lennon fan. I mean, I'm sorry he was murdered and all... but I was never really into him. I didn't care for his style of singing, I disagreed with his politics, and have you heard his widow screech... uh, I mean sing?

Lennon was the most anal of the four.

Then again, my heart always did belong to the cute one... Paul McCartney. He could sing. He could hold his own. And he was so devoted to his wife and family.

**EDIT** Read the rest of my answer... Yoko didn't make John bad... she was just one more reason, among many, why John was my least favorite Beatle.

***EDIT*** I'm insane for having an opinion? Or is it because my opinion doesn't CONFORM to all the other Lennon worshipers' opinions?

Answer 7

John was a man that sang about how he saw things. He was very passionate and wrote poerty... then put his poetry to music. He wrote very strange music and very beautiful music.
My personal favorite is Double Fantasy
Is he a better musician than Paul or George or Dylan? There is no comparison really.... was Bach better than Handel? They are all good in their own way.
Passion, poetry, love, whatever.... that is what they alll write about.. the rest is personal preference.
I happen to really enjoy them all.