The Beatles: Bigger than Jesus 41 years running

March 4, 2007 6:56 AM

The Beatles are Bigger than Jesus. It was 41 years ago today, that the Evening Standard published a Maureen Cleave interview with John Lennon, in which he declared the Beatles “more popular than Jesus”. Later in July, DATEbook, an American teen mag, printed only the Jesus statement and nothing else from the interview. The firestorm of reaction in the US was immediate. Radio stations nationwide, but particularly in the South and in the Midwest, banned the playing of Beatles records [Real Audio]. Death threats against all of the Fab Four poured in. In Cleveland, a preacher threatened to excommunicate any member of his congregation who listened to the Beatles, and in the South, the Ku Klux Klan burned the Beatles in effigy and nailed Beatles albums to burning crosses. On August 11, Lennon held a press conference in Chicago, where he apologized, sort of [Real Audio]. The press conference was on the eve of the Beatles’ last tour of their career. Many say this epsiode, as well as the riots that accompanied their tour of the Philippines (also in July), as well as the accumulated stress of being on top of the world for nearly four years at that point, precipitated the beginning of the end of the Beatles.
Is it true though? Are the Beatles bigger than Jesus? Though this was unanswerable in 1966, thanks to the magic of the web, we do know the answer today: according to Google, the answer is no. Still, other views persist.
posted by psmealey (71 comments total)

Some time after Lennon's infamous statement, The Eagles: Greatest Hits Vol. I became the greatest selling album ever.

The Beatles were a bunch of puny mortals who got cocky.
posted by Smart Dalek at 7:12 AM on March 4, 2007

Well, your first link works.

I remember this all very well. I was a 9-year-old, totally smitten with the Beatles, had all their records. Wanted to be Ringo, the whole bit. When this 'bigger than Jesus' story broke, some of the local (Birmingham, Alabama) radio DJs were on the air urging people to bring their Beatles records down to record-burning events that were being organized in strip-mall parking lots or wherever. At one family get-together, I remember some of my relatives urging my dad to take me to one of those bonfires and toss my precious records into the flames. I was utterly horrified. My dad, to his credit, ignored their hysterical advice and let me keep the records.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:12 AM on March 4, 2007

One of the links is actually an audio file of one of those Birmingham DJs doing exactly that. Maybe if I'm good, Matt, jess or cortex will bail me out.
posted by psmealey at 7:15 AM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

Hoped! Watch out for 'smart quotes' in your hrefs.
posted by cortex at 7:16 AM on March 4, 2007

Thanks, cortex. You rule!
posted by psmealey at 7:17 AM on March 4, 2007

ur links r smaller than jesus
posted by matteo at 7:18 AM on March 4, 2007

Since there were four Beatles and only one Jesus, yes, I imagine they were physically larger than Jesus.
posted by chasing at 7:19 AM on March 4, 2007

Funny, off-the-cuff quip taken way too seriously. I'm guessing there are people who actually believe this was some sort of calculated declaration- the result of some brainstorming by the boys and their publicity people.
posted by wfc123 at 7:19 AM on March 4, 2007

I think the google fight isn't really a fair indicator. Jesus is a fairly popular first name now and that is bound to skew results. For example, searching for Jesus you start to get this as you get into the pages.

What happens when you add Christ?
posted by saraswati at 7:27 AM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

By God, saraswati, Lennon was right. But his larger claim is still too close to call
posted by psmealey at 7:30 AM on March 4, 2007

He meant that there were more Beatles fans then Christians, or more likely, the Beatles were popular in both Christian and non-Christian nations.
posted by delmoi at 7:31 AM on March 4, 2007

Religion is not some sort of "popularity" contest.

Also, since when does the number of Google hits correlate with any sort of "popularity"? If it did, I guess we also have the following news-worthy items:

Bush more popular than Jesus.

Sex more popular than God.

Iraq war much more popular than Vietnam war.

Ku Klux Klan slightly more popular than Pope Benedict XVI.
posted by sour cream at 7:32 AM on March 4, 2007

even as a kid i understood what he meant. there was no need to crucify him for it.
posted by quonsar at 7:34 AM on March 4, 2007

since when does the number of Google hits correlate with any sort of "popularity"?

It doesn't correlate at all if you're humorless.
posted by Flem Snopes at 7:36 AM on March 4, 2007

The New Testament is not as dynamic as the change from "Meet the Beatles" to "Abbey Road", it showed barely any growth or maturity.
posted by geoff. at 7:40 AM on March 4, 2007 [3 favorites]

there was no need to crucify him for it.

They did it when he married Yoko too - although that is a bit easier to understand.
posted by three blind mice at 7:42 AM on March 4, 2007

Winner!
posted by Partial Law at 7:45 AM on March 4, 2007 [4 favorites]

By God, saraswati, Lennon was right. But his larger claim is still too close to call

Aha, but look at this!

Our conclusion? The internet is a cold, godless place.
posted by saraswati at 7:54 AM on March 4, 2007

Well now I look like a fool. I meant to cheat by doing it without quotation marks and I posted the wrong link.

Try again
posted by saraswati at 7:56 AM on March 4, 2007

Google Trends: "The Beatles" more often than not are more searched for than "Jesus Christ". Shocking, isn't it?
posted by knapah at 7:56 AM on March 4, 2007

Religion is not some sort of "popularity" contest.

Uh, yes it is. It's the most fundamental popularity contest in the history of humanity.
posted by Malor at 7:57 AM on March 4, 2007 [3 favorites]

So what. So are you.
posted by Termite at 7:58 AM on March 4, 2007

Maybe not, but they're definitely bigger than Santa Claus.
posted by autodidact at 8:10 AM on March 4, 2007

Google Trends: "The Beatles" more often than not are more searched for than "Jesus Christ". Shocking, isn't it?

English, your first language being is it?
posted by autodidact at 8:10 AM on March 4, 2007

If it did, I guess we also have the following news-worthy items: Sex more popular than God.

Thats certainly true for me.
posted by jlowen at 8:12 AM on March 4, 2007

The Beatles are Bigger than Jesus.

but neither one of them plays guitar or takes drugs as well as keith does
posted by pyramid termite at 8:14 AM on March 4, 2007

quonsar said, "even as a kid i understood what he meant. there was no need to crucify him for it."

I wasn't around when it was said, but I remember years later as kid myself hearing of this episode from my Sunday school teacher in the context of why "rock 'n roll is bad" and not understanding what the big deal was.

I realize now that some people just have an instant knee-jerk reaction to ANYONE who is not perceived as a traditional authority figure even mentioning Jesus. Let alone some long hair saying they are more popular no matter how tongue in cheek.

Some people just don't have a sense of humor about their messiah.

Furthermore the reaction to the Dixie Chick's very mild criticism of Bush (in a TIME OF WAR?!?! OMFG!!) in some ways mirrored that of the outrage expressed toward Lennon. Which is all the more disturbing considering that it points to some form of elevation of the commander in chief to that of the divine...
posted by wfrgms at 8:23 AM on March 4, 2007

They're bigger than Jesus in my household, that's for sure.

The only I get, the more I realize John Lennon was a bit of a douche, though.
posted by chudmonkey at 8:28 AM on March 4, 2007

Bigger than Jesus = Jumped the Shark?
posted by porpoise at 8:33 AM on March 4, 2007

In the future, everybody will be more famous than Jesus for 15 minutes. At this very moment, while we speak, the Numa Numa kid has just gotten bigger than Jesus.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:46 AM on March 4, 2007 [2 favorites]

The [older] I get, the more I realize John Lennon was a bit of a douche, though.

I still go back and forth on that as well. I think mostly he was an irritable, not-so-bright guy with a very sharp tongue who happened to have been given a huge megaphone. I think he mostly tried to use it to good effect, but just as often he made himsef look kind of shallow and foolish.

On this particular topic, though, I thought he was right. Though I only really became aware of the Beatles and this incident in the late 70s (when I was about 10) I, too, failed to understand why there was such venom and controversy about it.
posted by psmealey at 8:59 AM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

LOLXIANS! Death threats is totally the way Jesus taught us to respond to this kind of thing.
posted by nowonmai at 9:05 AM on March 4, 2007

Christians were morons back then. Good to see they have become enlightened.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 9:12 AM on March 4, 2007

I think mostly he was an irritable, not-so-bright guy with a very sharp tongue

he was pretty bright, but he was kind of messed up ... a poor childhood and sudden fame will make anyone seem dumb

I, too, failed to understand why there was such venom and controversy about it.

the belief that rock and roll was "just noise", "the devil's music" and "a plot to bring white teenagers down to the level of black people" was pretty prevalent then ...

hell, they threw you out of school if your hair touched your collar back then

girls didn't DARE wear jeans to school ... they'd throw you out for that

people have no idea how culturally conservative things were then ...

so, just having long hair and playing noise was enough to cause venom and controversy ... and then to add that the beatles are bigger than jesus ... watch out
posted by pyramid termite at 9:13 AM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

psmealey, just finished watching The US vs John Lennon - paints a very interesting picture of him, and I think your description doesn't do him justice. This is not to defend every bed-in and bag event as a work of genius, but simply to say that I do think he THOUGHT a lot about the things he was doing, and they came from a place of deep conviction. Maybe they could have been more articulately executed or thought through. But it left me feeling that the man had a lot of integrity (albeit at times fighting against alot of insecurity). The image burned in to my mind is from the footage of a reporter criticizing him for taking himself too seriously, thinking that he can change the world and save lives, when really all people want from him is "she loves you yeah, yeah, yeah". Lennon proudly and rightly points out that the previous day tens of thousands of war protesters had been singing a song that he wrote at a demonstration in DC - and that's a fairly important and meaningful contribution to make. Did it directly save any lives? No, sadly. But it is an IMPORTANT contribution to make, to the debate, and to the social conciousness of an era. Doesn't mean Lennon was a saint, but he was definitely a deep guy.

And if by "huge megaphone" you mean that he was one of the greatest pop musicians and composers that the world will ever know, then I couldn't agree more. Let's not forget about that.

I think "She Loves You" is a great song
posted by fingers_of_fire at 9:24 AM on March 4, 2007 [2 favorites]

John Lennon didn't say "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus".

He said "We are bigger than Jesus".

And as Googlefight clearly shows, he was one hundred percent correct.
posted by Flunkie at 9:34 AM on March 4, 2007

the beatles didn't wear very well, did they? 40 years later, they're no more relevant in my pagan household than jesus is. they embarked down a dead-end road, all the drugs and self-absorbtion obscured for many of their fans the basic need to make a living, to work for the improvement of the area and the planet, and the people who failed to leave this road now seem like forlorn birds who forgot to fly south for the winter.
posted by bruce at 9:35 AM on March 4, 2007

And if by "huge megaphone" you mean that he was one of the greatest pop musicians and composers that the world will ever know

Of course I agree. I am a huge fan of his and the Beatles' music. My comment was about his social activism and thoughts he expressed in the many interviews with him I have read, but you are quite right that I am probably not as up to speed on him, and I humbly submit that my flippant comment does not do the man justice.
posted by psmealey at 9:36 AM on March 4, 2007

Yeah, sometimes I read/watch interviews with Lennon and there is an air of douche-itude about him. But then I think, I can barely imagine that guy's experience of the world: poor, lonely boy in an industrial town in England with adolescent rock-star dreams that came unbelievably, wildly true. Being so famous that you couldn't go out for a loaf of bread, or a drink with friends (practically anywhere in the world) without causing a riot of screaming fans. Finding out that your songs influence people, how they think, at a time of widespread social consciousness and activism among the young. Constantly being asked stupid questions by dumb reporters, or condescended to by various authorities (and dumb reporters) who are trying to put the hippie in his place.....given all that, I think I might be a little douche-y at times, too. Maybe even a lot. Like, Britney-Spears-head-shaving-attacking-paparazzi-with-an-umbrella frustrated.

So I think he mostly handled things pretty well. And gave us such great music to boot. What knocks me out, reading back on the Jesus controversy, is (as pyramid termite pointed out) just how socially conservative the US was at the time. I blame the (self-obssessed, self-centered) baby boomers for a lot, but I must give them credit for that: they put the fucking conformist 50s and early 60s right to bed.
posted by LooseFilter at 9:56 AM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

Seconding The U.S. vs. John Lennon (2006) if you want to hear Lennon's answer to this, plus video of the record burning. It's interesting how good the bad guys look and how bad the good guys look after forty years.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:01 AM on March 4, 2007

Wow, I hadn't heard much about the Phillipines trouble, but went looking and found this page. Turns out the first family they snubbed for breakfast (thus sparking the outrage) was Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos:

Ringo: Personally, I didn't know anything about Madame Marcos having invited us to dinner. But we'd said no and Brian Epstein had told her no...We were just hanging out in our beds, chatting and doing whatever we were doing and time went by so we called down again: "Excuse me, can we have the breakfast?" Still nothing happened, so we put the TV on and there was a horrific TV show of Madame Marcos screaming: "They've let me down." There were all these shots with the cameraman focusing on empty plates and up into the little kids' faces, all crying because the Beatles hadn't turned up.

And then, of course, government officials make the next few days miserable, including a truly horrifying experience as they try to leave the country. Yeesh. Between that and the KKK stuff, it's no wonder they stopped touring.
posted by mediareport at 10:11 AM on March 4, 2007

the beatles didn't wear very well, did they?

hell yeah, who listens to them anymore, anyway? I can't remember the last time I heard them on the radio. Surprising lack of influence on popular music since then, too.

sadly, I'm all but certain I should put a tag on that statement.

As for John, I think he was a bright, talented, moody motherfucker who wasn't half the secular saint we're supposed to think he was now. Of course, I (heart) George, so I would say that, wouldn't I?
posted by scody at 10:22 AM on March 4, 2007

grr! "all but certain I should put a [sarcasm] tag on that statement!
posted by scody at 10:23 AM on March 4, 2007

I think that, at very least, the Beatles have the potential to be more popular than Jesus.

There are lots of non-Christians in this world. Most of them think it's okay to like music. The Beatles' music is very compatible, and most of the people I've known who like music also like the Beatles.

Consider this - India is one of the world's most populous nations. In recent years, their music has been largely influenced by western music, which was largely influenced by the Beatles. (which was also, in part, influenced by Indian music) If you like Indian cinemusic, there's a good chance that you would like the Beatles. There's a billion fans, right there.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:47 AM on March 4, 2007

I don't think the statement was all that inflammatory given that it is really ambiguous. "Popular" or "bigger than" might mean more well known, less disliked overall, or even more infamous. I'm sure most Christians took him to be saying that people liked the Beatles more than they liked Jesus. Unless people are really sure what he meant by the statement, there's no reason to get up in arms about it.

However, John's claims to actually be Jesus may have riled more than a few feathers. Funny how you don't hear about this as often. The last paragraph in the discussion is the relevant one.
posted by inconsequentialist at 11:05 AM on March 4, 2007

lol Beatle-tians.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:30 AM on March 4, 2007

You know you're doing something right if the KKK are burning effigies of you.
posted by algreer at 11:51 AM on March 4, 2007

interesting symmetry
posted by HyperBlue at 12:02 PM on March 4, 2007

""The Beatles" more often than not are more searched for than "Jesus Christ"."

Oh, come on. I've heard that millions of people have found Jesus. I've never heard anyone claim to have found Beatles.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:19 PM on March 4, 2007

HyperBlue wins! But so does teh gay.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:41 PM on March 4, 2007

And wikpedia ain't doing too bad.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:46 PM on March 4, 2007

autodidact:English, your first language being is it?

Actually, it is. Would it matter if it wasn't? I forgot a comma or two that would have made it more coherent. Who gives a shit?

Although maybe perhaps my grammatical using skillset lacks ability however possibly.
posted by knapah at 12:50 PM on March 4, 2007

In other news, a film made about John a short while before the Beatles broke up can't be shown commercially because the the owners lack clearance from Yoko and Lennon's estate. Instead, it will be shown free of charge at high schools and universities around the world.
posted by SteveInMaine at 1:51 PM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

Metafilter: Bigger than Jesus.
posted by LordSludge at 3:16 PM on March 4, 2007

Jesus? Jesus is just alright.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:54 PM on March 4, 2007

You know who else was bigger than Jesus.

That's right: Giant Jesus.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:02 PM on March 4, 2007

and a google trends comparison of "beatles, jesus" shows Jesus is still more popular.
posted by wumpus at 5:04 PM on March 4, 2007

Windows is bigger than Jesus. Does that make Gates bigger than God?
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:47 PM on March 4, 2007

"The Beatles were a bunch of puny mortals who got cocky."

Good for them, too! Besides, it's not that The Beatles were bigger than Jesus, it's the fact that The Beatles are very real, whereas Jesus, to many of us, is just someone in a book. The only puny thing about mortals is this need we seem to have to want to bring ourselves down by focusing on the fact that we will die, instead of focusing on how we LIVE. The latter is something The Beatles excelled at.

"The Beatles" more often than not are more searched for than "Jesus Christ". Shocking, isn't it?"

Not really. I'm not even mildly surprised by the fact. The Beatles mean something in my life, whereas Jesus has little or no influence. Last time I listened to The Beatles, they made me feel alive. Last time I read about Jesus, well, nothing happened.

"Maybe not, but they're definitely bigger than Santa Claus."

Jesus and Santa Claus are one and the same. Don't you know the hierarchy of fear, according to age? The one that's meant to keep us in line, "or else"?: 1) The Boogeyman, 2) Santa Claus, 3) God and Jesus, 4) Homeland Security.

"The only I get, the more I realize John Lennon was a bit of a douche, though."

How was he a douche? Because he wasn't perfect and didn't have something brilliant to say every time he opened his mouth to speak? When was the last time you heard anything even close to clever from current bands?

"In the future, everybody will be more famous than Jesus for 15 minutes. At this very moment, while we speak, the Numa Numa kid has just gotten bigger than Jesus."

"Like, Britney-Spears-head-shaving-attacking-paparazzi-with-an-umbrella frustrated."

No. There is this desire by people to try and cut everyone who's brighter, more important and relevant than they are down to size. Maybe to make up for their own feelings of being unimportant. The Beatles were brilliant, not only for their time, but still. Some people may equal or suprpass their welth, some may break their chart records (not such a feat, since the band is no longer around to improve upon them- and considering there was no MTV and The Beatles rarely appeared on television during their most creative years), some may even equal the frenzy the band got from their fans. Yes, all of these things may happen, but no one will ever equal the musical, cultural, political and social impact The Beatles had on the world. And, Britney Spears? Britney Spears? The only reason why she is popular is sex. No longer sexy? No longer interesting. Musically, she is as relevant as the sounds of my typing, Unless you are among those who think Madonna's fame is due to her "great" music. If so, there's not much I can say to you.

"the beatles didn't wear very well, did they? 40 years later, they're no more relevant in my pagan household than jesus is. they embarked down a dead-end road, all the drugs and self-absorbtion obscured for many of their fans the basic need to make a living, to work for the improvement of the area and the planet, and the people who failed to leave this road now seem like forlorn birds who forgot to fly south for the winter."

The Beatles are not relevant? What makes you think that? Because you don't listen to them at home? That's a solid measure of relevancy? If you think drug use is all The Beatles were about, you have a talent to focus on irrelevancy. It was about the music. The Beatles were doggedly optimistic and spiritual, even in the face of personal grief and unrelenting attaks from the outside. Every single time an album of their music comes out, it finds its way to the top of the charts. Books about them are consistent best sellers. Even if they weren't first-class philosophers, their message never wavered, and just as this Jesus person everyone gets so riled up about, it is still relevant.

"What knocks me out, reading back on the Jesus controversy, is (as pyramid termite pointed out) just how socially conservative the US was at the time."

Not at the time. The United Sates Of America is STILL socially conservative. Have you visited the Mid West recently?

"As for John, I think he was a bright, talented, moody motherfucker who wasn't half the secular saint we're supposed to think he was now."

We're not supposed to think Lennon was a saint. He would have been the first to reject such a notion. He even admitted how limited a guitar player he was. John consistently stated that the main problem with ideas was that people focused on the thinker, instead of the concept he or her was proposing. "Remember the dream, not the dreamer," I believe was his statement. Whoever thinks Jesus' message is important and worthy, go ahead and live your life by those principles, and stop talking about the man.

"Oh, come on. I've heard that millions of people have found Jesus. I've never heard anyone claim to have found Beatles."

I'm here to tell you differently. I did find The Beatles. I know exactly where I found them: in my parents' record collection. Their music was a revelation to me, and later, readiong about their lives and ideas, their search for enlightenemt, it affected my life more than words can explain. I have explored every single phylosophical, political and religious concept they explored, and my life and understanding has been elevated because of it. I am also here to tell you that I found Jesus, too. I'm holding him for 30 days, and if no one claims him, I'm keeping him.

As I said in a previous thread, I really don't know where animosity towards The Beatles comes from, and by that I also mean those who think the band is irrelevant because they aren't "new." Well, I'm not old. I wasn't there when The Beatles arrived in the USA. I wasn't even born when they broke up. As a matter of fact, when I arrived on this planet, John Lennon had been dead for years, and I'm here to tell you, they are the band that spawned the rock industry as it still exists today. Punk and so called "Grunge" (which never really existed) all thrived by being covered by the very serious rock media that was created in the wake of The Beatles and their fellow British invaders. Bands are expected to write their own material, and those that don't are never taken seriously. That's because of The Beatles. Rock musicians are expected to be aware of their times and have opinions, because of The Beatles. Sure. The shrill screams and "mania" were there before The Beatles and have been witnessed again later, but no single Rock and Roll band (and make no mistake - The Beatles are one) has ever affected hairstyles, fashion, politics, or journalism as much as these guys from Liverpool did. No one ever will again. Add to that an unbelievable musical output and growth that 30-year old bands envy. Even Bob Dylan recongized them as harbingers of a new age. The Beatles are not overrated. The Beatles ARE the rating system itself.
posted by RayOrama at 11:56 PM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

Even if they weren't first-class philosophers...

I beg to differ! If the following lines ain't first-class philosophizing, then I don't know what is:

"And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right
Where I belong I'm right
Where I belong"

I mean, that's existentialism to make Sartre proud, no?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 12:18 AM on March 5, 2007

Bigger, I'm not sure about, but certainly better.
posted by pracowity at 1:10 AM on March 5, 2007

I think Paul got fatter than Jesus. But i can't be sure.
posted by algreer at 1:36 PM on March 5, 2007

Don't forget about that other controversy, Rutles' "Bigger Than God":

In 1966 the Rutles faced the biggest threat to their careers. Nasty in a widely quoted interview had apparently claimed that the Rutles were bigger than God, and was reported to have gone on to say that God had never had a hit record.

The story spread like wildfire in America. Many fans burnt their albums, many more burnt their fingers attempting to burn their albums. Album sales sky-rocketed. People were buying them just to burn them.

But in fact it was all a ghastly mistake. Nasty, talking to a slightly deaf journalist, had claimed only that the Rutles were bigger than Rod. Rod Stewart would not be big for another eight years, and certainly at this stage hadn't had a hit. At a press conference, Nasty apologized to God, Rod and the press, and the tour went ahead as planned. It would be the Rutles' last.

posted by mazola at 3:00 PM on March 5, 2007

The real outrage, of course, is that Oasis think they're bigger than Jesus, God and the Beatles.

Deluded nincompoops.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:23 PM on March 5, 2007

is that Oasis think they're bigger than Jesus, God and the Beatles

Oasis don't really think that, though, that's just their marketing message.

FWIW, as much as Oasis used to irritate me, I actually saw a recent live clip of them on YouTube where Noel was doing all the singing and Liam was nowhere to be found. I found this incarnation to be much more agreeable than their traditional lineup.
posted by psmealey at 5:44 PM on March 5, 2007

Oasis don't really think that, though, that's just their marketing message.

This is an interesting point. I reckon who you are and who you're marketed as should necessarily be understood as being entirely different things. Isn't that a little odd, though? Why would you want to be marketed as something you're not?

Okay, okay, I know... a fleet of Rolls Royces and all that.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:52 PM on March 5, 2007

Why would you want to be marketed as something you're not?

I don't have a good answer to that. Band of my youth, Kiss, used to call themselves "the hottest band in the world" as a posture, even though we all (and presumably they) knew it was not true.

Similarly, the Supersuckers sort of co-opted a form of that slogan as well when they started getting a (modest) following on the garage circuit in the 90s, and when they did it, it was boastful, tongue-in-cheek and hilarious.
posted by psmealey at 6:02 PM on March 5, 2007

Why would you want to be marketed as something you're not?

because it works ... you didn't really think that drinking old milwaukee would get you lots of scantily dressed chicks with big boobs did you?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:17 PM on March 5, 2007

you didn't really think that drinking old milwaukee would get you lots of scantily dressed chicks with big boobs did you?

Hey, worked for me!

No, wait, they weren't that scantily dressed... and they didn't usually have big... and... it wasn't Old Milwaukee I was drinking...

Nevermind.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:24 PM on March 5, 2007

We're not supposed to think Lennon was a saint.

I dunno, man. When I was seventeen, I accepted John Lennon as my Personal Lord and Savior. John, who was shot down for our sins!

(I've always been a bit of a wiseass.)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:00 PM on March 5, 2007

"I've always been a bit of a wiseass."

So was John. ;)
posted by RayOrama at 8:35 PM on March 5, 2007