Seabiscuit asked in SportsOlympics · 8 years ago

John Lennon would have been a better choice to represent the Brits if he were alive, he was much more talented?

than Paul, don't you agree? his music was always more complex and genius compared to the trite mcartney

4 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    No. I'm a HUGE Beatles fan, perhaps the biggest! :) John went crazy and went all 'Preacher' on everybody, which is great, but he was a hippocrate. He didn't give peace a chance himself (he was very violent towards yoko and most of his friends)

    Paul is just an all around good guy. He's genuine and not fake and not a hippocrate. John said he would be peaceful, he wasn't

    Paul says he will protect animal rights and help stop the land mines, and he DOES.

    I think Paul was a perfect choice but Ringo should have been there

    Source(s): And also, Paul is WAY more talented than John!!!! I mean come on!! Look at the facts right!! He was and IS the MOST SUCCESSFUL BEATLE!!!!!
  • 8 years ago

    Lennon was a hypocritical a$$hole and I'd sooner cut my own ears off that listen to five seconds of his rancid, whiny solo dross.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    They should of used Elton John. As, if not more talented than Paul. And it would make the gays happy too!

    Source(s): Always loved his music and lyrics. A lot of my friends threw away his albums when he came out. I still have my originals. Worth BIG $$ Now. I'm not gay. Because great music is great music!
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    He was an awful person, abandoned his son and cheated on both of his wives...nah, he'd be an embarrassment

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.