Never liked the Beatles they couldnt sing, just didnt understand what peeps seen in them, over rated i say. As for john lennon he was only good for lying naked stoned outa his head lying beside a jap

They were way over-rated in my Honest Opinion like the Stones neither can sing, just shout into the mike + teenagers r so easily taken in by all the hype thats always been the case, they were not entertaining to me anyhow all to there own

When anyone sais to me ol'pal that the Beatles were excellent then i know they know piss all about talent as there songs etc were just basic to me, anyhow as i say all to there own, be a boooring World if everyone liked the same things eh Ps As for the Avatar u just wanna see this real Guitar player mind u your avatar i like very much, can i steal it. As for tony blair well am afraid he was just a closet tory in my book.

Abbey rd. was recently voted the greatest swansong album!!


MAKE LOVE AND WAR!!

John


Damn right I'm good in bed, I can sleep for hours!

You love it. You know you do.

Should learn to spell correctly the word erm nationality

CDUCKS BEATLE TOTD
Bealte books pt1

I found the essays in Ian McDonalds Revolution in the Head really heavy and OTT, but the song by song analysis is irresistable. Also The glossary has the definition of a maracas but not a svarmandal which is a bit of an oversight.

Yoko put out a collection called Memories of John...which has got a fascinating contribution from John's 70's best friend Eliott Mintz, which is admirably candid. Unfortunately it has a contribution from Bono who's got as many memories of John Lennon as i have of Issac Newton.

I personnally found Cynthias John a bit too bitchy but it's a must read.

Ray Colmans 2 vol. John biog isn't as definitive as he'd like to think...there's nothing in it that's not in other books and it stupidly attempts to promote John's talent over Paul's. Blatantly stating John was a genius but Paul was just very talented!!!

Hunter Davis is unique in having exclusive access to the Beatles while they were The Beatles and his writing is engaging if a bit slapdash. It's also by his own admission sanitsed somewhat. The Beatle stuff in his book Football, the Beatles and me or whatever it's called is a collection of exerts from his revised Official Beatle biog. So, it's not worth buying...and a real rip-off because not only is the Beatle stuff rehashed...It only takes up about 20 pages.

Peter Browns The Love you make has huge credability esp. on Brian Epstein and the Apple debacle. In it he claims Richard Branson sued John for breach of promise when John gave his Student magazine a recording of his dying baby's heart beat rather than a song for a free flexi disc Branson wanted to give away with the magazine. In Branson's biog. he claims he didn't sue...

I haven't read Philip Normans 'anti-McCartney' book Shout! But i have read, or rather skimmed through articles he's written about Paul and it's just so obvious he hates Paul and only writes about the Beatles to work out his own pathetic resentment and jealousy of good old Paul.

Geoffery Guillano's Revlover-the secret history of the Beatles is a real tacky affair and appropriating the title of a Beatles album for his book is just unforgivable! Oh Yeah and the subtitles a violation of the trade descriptions act.

Mark Lewisohn's complete Beatle recording sessions is a bit overated, in my opinion, or perhaps it's got to much technical explanation for me, but anyone interested in the Beatles NEEDS to read it!


MAKE LOVE AND WAR!!

i sang hey jude in the choir once,it was bad


"Of all the things i've lost,i miss my mind the most"