[QUOTE=Walrus Gumboot]How could I forget "Something"?[/QUOTE]

Brilliant song :)

abbey road is awesome

[QUOTE=mprules]abbey road is awesome[/QUOTE]

You're absolutely right. :thumb:

That is one brilliant album. Every instrument was at it's best, the melodies were fantastic and the songwriting was fantastic.

That was the last album they recorded, and was supposed to be the last album they released. The entire second half is made up of song ideas they stiched together. Paul chose the order for the second half, John the first.

[QUOTE=Schyma]Sounds like the James Bond theme song.[/QUOTE]

Which came first Bond or Hey Bulldog?

Bond, I think Dr. No was '63

I heard today that when the Manson cult killed those people they wrote Helter Skelter on the wall. Is that true? If so I think he kinda missed the message the Beatles sent.

I feel bad for the Beatles I mean they wrote songs to fight for peace, and sombody turned it around into murder. If that happened to me I don't know if I could keep writting.

yeah, John was pissed because Manson changed the image of a long-hair long-bearded guy from a hippie into a murderer. People wearing this style were forever more asscoiated with being phchos instead of peace-lovers :(

Well, Manson was also a musical genius. Neil Young said he'd never met someone that was so just naturally brilliant with music. The guy just came up with idea after idea after idea. Similar to Syd Barrett in a lot of ways, only his insanity took a very different turn.

I Want You (She's So Heavy) is kind of overrated in my opinion. It's good, but too long. Something is unbelievable though. The live version of it on the George in Japan CD is unbelievable.

I've heard the reason it's so repetitive is because it represents obsession (in this case, John for Yoko)

There may be a reason for it to be so repetitive, but it doesn't change the fact that I find it annoying after awhile.

I Want You(She's So Heavy) has some of Paul's greatest bass work ever. One part in the song, he does this "bombardment" of notes that sounds awesome.

[QUOTE=DeusExMachina]Well, Manson was also a musical genius. Neil Young said he'd never met someone that was so just naturally brilliant with music. The guy just came up with idea after idea after idea. Similar to Syd Barrett in a lot of ways, only his insanity took a very different turn.

I Want You (She's So Heavy) is kind of overrated in my opinion. It's good, but too long. Something is unbelievable though. The live version of it on the George in Japan CD is unbelievable.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Neil Young said he could make up a song out of the top of head every different time and each song was amazing.

[QUOTE=Walrus Gumboot]yeah, John was pissed because Manson changed the image of a long-hair long-bearded guy from a hippie into a murderer. People wearing this style were forever more asscoiated with being phchos instead of peace-lovers :([/QUOTE]

John also got really pissed off because he was asked to attend the trial of manson and in short he said:
"No F**k off, paul and i just wrote a song that had nothing to do with serial killing, you cant hold us responsible for what happend"

[QUOTE=Walrus Gumboot]yeah, John was pissed because Manson changed the image of a long-hair long-bearded guy from a hippie into a murderer. People wearing this style were forever more asscoiated with being phchos instead of peace-lovers :([/QUOTE]

John also got really pissed off because he was asked to attend the trial of manson and in short he said:
"No F**k off, paul and i just wrote a song that had nothing to do with serial killing, you cant hold us responsible for what happend"

*listens to Helter Skelter*

You know I think this whole Charles Manson thing really shows how many different meanings to everybody. Thats why I like the Beatles lyrics so much, they don't have a meaning the band wanted them to have, as much as a meaning that everybody has their own interpetation of.

I'm reading about the Charles Manson case right now...

and it seems like this episode of CSI I saw.

Was Manson a Beatles fan? I mean I'm pretty sure he was, but the whole Helter Skelter thing seems more like a slap in a face to John then anything. I mean did he think he would be impressed?

no clue, i dont think anyone but manson does.

What do you guys think would of happend if John Lennon wasnt shot and still was living today?

and what do you think about the consperacy of John's killer being linked to the CIA?

I think he would be doing what Neil Young is doing with Greendale.

whats neil doing?

Greendale--- It was a tour, it is a movie and album, check it out

[QUOTE=Sgt._Joker]no clue, i dont think anyone but manson does.

What do you guys think would of happend if John Lennon wasnt shot and still was living today?

and what do you think about the consperacy of John's killer being linked to the CIA?[/QUOTE]

I think we would see a huger outcry against the war in Iraq. I don't think he would be putting out albums still he doesn't seem like the ageing rockstar type. I just think there would be more people with free minds.

I don't think the CIA had anything to do with it. I mean why not take out Dylan too?

I think john lennon would still produce CD's but because he was known to say "Music is the most powerfull protest wepon, etc etc etc"
he'd use it as a protest outlet

[QUOTE=Sgt._Joker]I think john lennon would still produce CD's but because he was known to say "Music is the most powerfull protest wepon, etc etc etc"
he'd use it as a protest outlet[/QUOTE]

Yea that is very true. I think that just one thing needs to be said about what would have happened had he lived and thats that our world would be a better place, and peace would seem less like the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

[QUOTE=pigonthewing82]I think we would see a huger outcry against the war in Iraq. [/QUOTE]

I think not. Lennon would almost doubtlessly be against it if he remained philosophically similar to how he was during his lifetime, but people would discredit him for it. Just because Lennon says it's good doesn't mean that people would follow. I can totally see him getting blasted on Rush or somewhere for coming out against the war, and his sometimes utopian views would be easily attacked. Part of his mystique is that he's dead.

[QUOTE=ultraspamboy]I think not. Lennon would almost doubtlessly be against it if he remained philosophically similar to how he was during his lifetime, but people would discredit him for it. Just because Lennon says it's good doesn't mean that people would follow. I can totally see him getting blasted on Rush or somewhere for coming out against the war, and his sometimes utopian views would be easily attacked. Part of his mystique is that he's dead.[/QUOTE]

Since when did John stop fighting for peace because he would lost popularity. If that were true they would have stopped being political long before the end of their career. There would be a bigger outcry against the war because I'm sure he would speak out against it. He has a way with words where everything just sort of makes sense. And to those who attacked his utopian views I think he would say somthing like "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one"

i agree with piggy, John Lennon couldnt give a flying fu*k about popularity, and i was reading a book about him and he said "I know its very selfish but i dont give a **** about humanity, i'll just try and do what i can for the moment"

Hey, I never said he would stop, I'm just saying fewer people would be into it. I definitely agree that, if allowed to defend himself, he would be hard to attack without prior character assassination by whoever was trying to knock him down. I think of "Imagine" as a work of genius mainly because unlike most political songs of any era it addresses and accepts the idea that people oppose the viewpoint it expresses.

sorry mate, didnt mean to have a go at you.