The Beatles poll!

Paul McCartney is the best musician of them all, easily enough but John music appeals me more; I think A Day in the Life and In my Life are two best beatles songs.

George was pretty good too but I don't see him as a genius like Lennon and McCartney were, same quality but didnt do 20% of what they did in quantity.

Ringo is pretty much a joke: Being generous an ok drummer, a bad composer and a bad singer.

John Lennon!

Anderson III wrote: John Lennon was clearly the best singer, instrumentalist, songwriter and lyricist in the band IMHO. On top of that, he was the coolest dude, most influential and easily my favorite of the four.

 lennon best intrumentalist in the band ?   

Lennon.

I am the bass man, whoooooo I am the walrus... Googoogajoob !

George,
So glad he is leading he was never truly appreciated whilst he was in the beatles

If I sit down and compare it all, it goes sumthin' like dis:

Paul is my favourite Beatle. He was the better musician and the better songwriter in my opinion, although when Lennon had his moments, they were really, really good moments. John's lyrics with Paul's music and singing; that would be perfect for me, but it didn't work like that of course.

Although many people are sympathetic towards George, I would say that had he written as many songs as Lennon/McCartney, we would have seen his weaknesses more, and not been so "Oh, he was so underrated and ignored", which hasn't been true since the mid-sixties. He was good, but The Beatles just happened to contain two geniuses.

rogerthat wrote: thehallway wrote: Paul is my favourite Beatle. He was the better musician and the better songwriter in my opinion, although when Lennon had his moments, they were really, really good moments. John's lyrics with Paul's music and singing; that would be perfect for me, but it didn't work like that of course. Although many people are sympathetic towards George, I would say that had he written as many songs as Lennon/McCartney, we would have seen his weaknesses more, and not been so "Oh, he was so underrated and ignored", which hasn't been true since the mid-sixties. He was good, but The Beatles just happened to contain two geniuses. Agreed with much of this. I think Paul just gets a bit more flak than he really deserves because of his solo career and because of his image, right or wrong, of being sissy and pop-y.

Which doesn't bother me even if it were true. Additionally, I think people resent his success somewhat. I mean, the term 'success' is almost synonymous with Paul McCartney, when it comes to music. The other Beatles have faired worse (relatively), and there is a slight compulsion in people to favour 'troubled', or 'unfortunate' people over people who haven't really had any problems, or haven't been shot. Why? I don't really know. I judge the music alone..... not because I'm perfect, but just because I'm a musician probably, and not particularly interested in people as people, if you get what I mean. As someone who likes to be alone more than anything, I don't really connect with any rock stars based on their personality.

Ring Starr. I guess I'm in the minority? Haven't you heard Tomorrow Never Knows? The drum groove is so tight on that song, but that's not really why it's great; tight grooves go back to the Cenezoic Era. Momentum is the word. Listen to how the groove pushes to the end of every phrase.

Ringo is also one of those drummers who gets a really unique timbre out of the skins and hoops. I'm sure we could credit the bleached shirt, Snickers-munching artless b*****ds known as studio engineers for most of that, though-- sorry, someone I know.