Danny Boy
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Yep. Family history of suicide is a huge risk factor.
Well by "trumps" I'm talking about the sensationalistic nature combined with the amount of potential work lost.
Weren't the drugs he was receiving from Dr. Murray illegal?
It's safe to say that as a recording artist he was pretty much done.
Lennon's death was second to only one other musician's in terms of cultural impact. Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain, Tupac, Biggie, Jackson, Houston, Hutchence, Mercury, Holly and every other musician who died tragically young didn't measure up to Lennon in terms of their impact, there is only one who did and exceeded him and that's Elvis Presley.
I'm not really sure the potential work lost would have amounted to anything greater than what he already produced, to be honest. I mean, have there been recordings released post humously that give any indication of this? I'm asking sincerely, as I mentioned I wasn't overly enamoured with Nirvana to begin with so that likely colors my opinion a little..
I wouldn't say it's safe to say his career was done.
If we're going to gauge the end of artists' careers by whether an album goes 2x platinum vs 7x platinum, we might as well write off U2 completely now lol!
I'm not really sure the potential work lost would have amounted to anything greater than what he already produced, to be honest. I mean, have there been recordings released post humously that give any indication of this? I'm asking sincerely,
For all either of us know, he could have petered off into irrelevance or make some really shitty music that ended up flopping. I mean, noone really knows. Compare him and Bono at 27...safe to say that we absolutely knew Bono had a hell of alot more to give the world at 27. Absolutely without a doubt.
This is a head scratcher to me. How would any lost recording released posthumously be any indication of his future work had he lived?
Gabe and Laz arguing about MJ
I'm trying to think of what would be a current day equivalent to Kurt Cobain's sudden death 20 years ago. I suppose maybe Kanye West, maybe Alex Turner or Lady Gaga? What would have the most identical impact and resonance? I really don't know.
You'll probably not be able to understand my opinion until you accept that I really really liked MJs music and didn't really like Cobain's that much at all. I dont think he was nearly as creative as MJ and I don't see what you say was apparently forthcoming from him had he not killed himself. That's not being obtuse, it's just a taste thing.
Of course we can't say for sure what Cobain's future output would have looked like, but I would say that In Utero was a masterwork that pointed at several daring and artistically promising directions. I would think that he would have become a Nick Cave like figure with a great deal of genre experimentation. The odds that he was going to start releasing a bunch of Bon Jovi-esque shit ballads or something are pretty small.
I'll assume age and geography probably limit your full understanding of the Beatles' and Lennon's impact on culture, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
If you can't set aside your own personal taste to objectively recognize this, I'm not sure why one would even want to take part in the discussion.
Well ostensibly it would be stuff since the last album which would give some clue as to what might have been next ie what he was working on but unfinished..
I'm not sure there is a proper comparison right now. What popped into my head was Kendrick but he hasn't made as much of a mark.
In Utero was released Sept 13 1993, they toured consistently until the beginning of March 1994, he died April 5, 1994, so I don't think there was much worked on between In Utero and his death.
I'll assume age and geography probably limit your full understanding of the Beatles' and Lennon's impact on culture, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But be sure Lennon's "godlike status" in comparison to the other 3 you refer to was well in place long before his death. Lennon was always the most revered of the Beatles and had he lived and never released anything else, or released multiple albums of Yoko imitating injured animals, he would always be the most revered. (to even in passing suggest Ringo would be bigger is so laughable it destroys any credibility your opinion on the subject might warrant.)
Lennon's death was second to only one other musician's in terms of cultural impact. Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain, Tupac, Biggie, Jackson, Houston, Hutchence, Mercury, Holly and every other musician who died tragically young didn't measure up to Lennon in terms of their impact, there is only one who did and exceeded him and that's Elvis Presley.
It's about your perverse agenda to reduce any other band and/or musician to a stereotype based on a pathetic pun you got from the only band you actually seem to know something about. Educate yourself and stop being a wise-ass. You have no idea how stupid you look to people here.
"Choosing" depression? Go and troll in your own backyard.
My argument wasn't that Double Fantasy's sales weren't to some degree benefited from by passing (although it was far too early to judge the fate of that album after three weeks of sales), merely that it wasn't exactly a huge career move when there wasn't much further up for him to go. His legacy was already sealed, unlike Kurt, who probably wouldn't be as respected today if he had run out of ideas. Two classic albums followed by years of garbage wouldn't be enough.
Plus, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that Lennon would have only damaged his discography after 1980. That's not a foregone conclusion. McCartney hit on some inspiration in the late 90s and has been riding it ever since. Lennon surely had more great material left in him.
I doubt U2 invented the line.
(no one said Ringo wold be bigger)
.
So you meant Paul, George and who? Pete Best? Stu Sutcliffe?. I would argue Lennon would not be seen as bigger than the other three
and listened exclusively to the beatles and the local oldies station,
So you know Ringo was a bigger cultural icon than John Lennon, right.
Like I said...it was a comeback after 5 years of no recording. It then got the sales and the Grammy. And thus the Lennon myth was born, compared to other Beatles. Even compared to other prematurely gone 60's legends.
He had very good opening two solo albums that he never matched. To say nothing of the songwriting level of the Beatles.
McCartney did get good reviews for his latter day solo albums but I think few would argue his solo work would rival his best writing as a Beatle.
I know this is supposed to be one of those events that you remember exactly where you were when you heard the news. But you know what? I don't.
I was very busy with my last semester of college and I didn't have a TV at the time. Internet of course barely existed. I'm sure someone told me but I really have no memory of it.