The Beatles - Who Do You Think Was The Best and Why

SBob

Couldnt possibly vote, to try to figure out which one is the best is to miss the point completely.

the beauty of the beatles is that they are so different but so similar, i.e. paul and john wrote on some levels similar types of songs but they came at it from completely different angles. The Beatles represent almost the full spectrum of modern song writing. The personality of the band is incredibly complex as is how the indivudual personalities relate to each other. but you could go on all day about it.

As for the music being simple, they released like 2 or three top class albums a year, the music was flowing out of them, they had no time or inclination to go into a studio and like radiohead or somebody really work on making something complex and meaningful (on a rational, intellectual level). they let the music speak for itself. Abbey road is one of the most beautiful albums ever to come out of the modern era, and alot of the lyrics seem silly and pointless. The riffs, the base lines, the piano, everything seems so perfect they you feel they must have just played it without any planning whatsoever.

Who needs complex when you can have simple perfection

bluto63

I went with Paul.

John was a little too out there. While Paul was in creating Blackbird for the White Album, John was in another studio making Revolution 9.

George, havn't heard much about him.

Ringo is just plain useless

Paul was/is the man. But still, as has been said like 50 times already; they worked as a group

Goodshape

The U.S. vs. John Lennon trailer

The music may be debatable (I'd still go for John tbh), but Paul, George and Ringo ain't got **** on this guy.

Jim_Are_Great

Bodhidharma wrote:

The Stones RULE!

I second that.

Anto McC

George!

As well as being a fantasic guitarist,he wrote some of their best tracks and his "all things must pass album" is genius

nohshow

In brief but heartfelt defense of Ringo: John's quote "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles" was a joke. I know Paul drummed sometimes on the later albums, but that wasn't because anyone reckoned Paul's drumming would be better - it was because Ringo was away.

Ringo was highly rated as a club drummer and was the only one of the four to have been a professional, gigging musician before the Beatles. After the split, the others still wanted to work with him and not only because of his amiable personality. His drumming was always solid and precise. Try setting a metronome to any of his tracks and see how far he drifts. He didn't go in for flashy fills and trashy frills, preferring to treat the drums as the rhythm back-bone of the music, using them as musical instruments to complement what the others were playing. In so many songs (Hey Jude, Please Please Me, Let it Be, Birthday (might have been Paul), Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows, George's Long, Long, Long and dozens more) the drums are as much a part of the music as any of the guitars or voices. There are even tracks where you can't help but sing the drum parts when you're humming the tune.

He is the only one who worked with each of the other three immediately post-break-up. He is the only one that each considered a close friend. If it's on personality, on level-headedness, wit and amiability, he might be considered the best man out of the four of them. In musicianship, Paul is probably the most influencial bass player of his era. For songwriting, John needed Paul and Paul needed John, but George created three of the Beatles' greatest songs (Something, While My Guitar and Here Comes the Sun - personally, I really love Long, Long, Long, as well) working almost entirely on his own, with not even George Martin, as he later confessed, giving him enough attention. But take any one of those names off the roster and the band wouldn't be The Beatles anymore. There was no best Beatle. It's like asking which is the better arm or leg.

Pigman II

My fav was George. Didn't get many tracks onto the records but what he did was usual good stuff. Plus I watched the Beatles Antholgy and he seemed to have the least amount of bull**** to him.

Amazotheamazing wrote:

Also, unlike John, George and Ringo, he never beat his wife. The other 3 have all confessed to beating theirs.

He just had to whip out the hacksaw to keep his wife in check.

Doomspell

I like George too.....need I state a reason...

C Fodder

I can't vote because I need four votes. In fairness nohshow got it right in defense of Ringo because the Beatles wouldn't be the the Beatles without him. John was my favoutite songwriter by a long way e.g. he got it right solo on "Working class hero". Paul is a musician and a half and my respect grows for him over the years but George was just George and well brilliant......... ( maybe not quite as brilliant as Keith Moon but.......). The true quality of the Beatles was that four very different and talented people came together and made music better than any one, two, or three of them could.

loyatemu

the beatles as a band were obviously genius, but as solo artists none of them realy lived up to expectations. you could fit the best solo work by all 4 of them onto 1 CD.

Goodshape

loyatemu wrote:

the beatles as a band were obviously genius, but as solo artists none of them realy lived up to expectations. you could fit the best solo work by all 4 of them onto 1 CD.

I'd rate Imagine and Plastic Ono Band as two fantastic albums. Likewise All Things Must Pass.

They're not given enough credit if you ask me.

MrJones

well i have a compilation -lennon legend, with 21 tracks on it of some of lennons best solo stuff and all of it is quality. and im sure there are a good few good songs left out at that.

loyatemu wrote:

the beatles as a band were obviously genius, but as solo artists none of them realy lived up to expectations. you could fit the best solo work by all 4 of them onto 1 CD.

Beastieboy

For me it's hard to choose between John and George. I love John for his lyrics and George for his melodies.

ogy

even mccartney has acknowledged that the beatles were an obvious example of the whole being (far) greater than the sum of its parts. All the beatles were equally important in making the beatles so great (including ringo!:).

saying musically theyre not that great is completely missing the point of music. theres so many factors that make up what a good song or good album or good band is. in terms of harmony/melody/lyrics the beatles have undoubtedly some of the greatest music ever written. with some bands and genres flair/musicianship/complexity are an integral part of what makes them great e.g. rock blues crossover acts like zeppelin etc, virtuosic classical stuff, jazz fusion like mahavishnu etc. But with other genres different elements are more important like the bealtes/the beach boys/elvis costello etc. I guess its whatever you look for in the music you like, but i always think the ability to write a great song full of sublime melody and harmony is far more impressive and more artistic than someone who can play incredibly fast over complex arrangements, or music that uses intricate harmonys just for the sake of it, which i always felt makes a sport out of music rather than an art. anyway in summary, to say the beatles are not that musically talented is utterly daft.

ps - i don't think ringo really was a very good drummer. how hard would it be to make it as a working drummer during the skiffle era, also check out the extras on the last waltz when levon helm has to leg it on stage to cover ringos awful drumming, he was what he was and it worked:)

so atari jaguar all the way