Best Beatle

About some 20 years ago I'd say McCartney, definitely. But now I just can't stand his cheesy melodies. I'm judging on the base of post- Rubber Soul albums, i.e. when the songwriting became individual. Sorry, I simply don't like Pop. Therefore I can vote only for Lennon or Harrison. Both are great, but I prefer (slightly) Lennon, maybe, due to the fact that he is a little bit proggier than Harrison (after all, I'm in the ProgRock site, I can't not to speak/think in the terms of Prog).

John Lennon, due to his musical genius and great humour! They were all brilliant, but ever since I saw A Hard Day's Night, John has been one of my biggest idols!

McCartney, because of his talent as a bassist and (it's personally) for his style of composition.

George.His studies on the sitar and eastern religion steered the group toward their psych sound and the rest as they say...

Paul Lennon, or John McCartney. Take your pick.

John Lennon has a few distinct advantages over his partner in "pop" geniusness (yeah it's not really a word). One, he always came across as the "artist" of the group. Even though in the mid 60s Paul was the one out on the London "art" scene exploring. Two, Lennon was deemed to be the "political" one. Yet, & I'm paraphrasing the great Rock N Roll writer Lester Bangs who said that he couldn't genuflect at the temple of Rock revolutionaries such as Lennon & Jagger. Why, well simply put, this oxymoronic term - Multi-millionaire socialist. John & Paul donated to their own causes, but John didn't exactly give it all away, eh ... John made "important" music. Yes, like Double Fantasy. John, like Paul had his share of solo success & failures. The fact that he pulled himself out of the game for five years while Paul went on does explain some of the perceived quality issues. If you put out 20 albums & the other guy puts out 10 & you both have the same success ratio, guess who has the most "stinkers. John was the humanist philosopher, the peacenik, all you need is love guy. Paul was the shallow, shill of a songwriter, who wrote silly love songs. Well now, how many saints go on a year & a half long weekend, gallivanting with a 20 something mistress, leaving your beloved wife back home. Are we including John's miserable treatment of his first wife & child in our judgment ? Do we accept the public face over the private reality that he had, as we all do, many failings ? Paul made no bones about his non-interest in stirring up trouble with his music. He put out an early solo single about Ireland ,got sl*gged for it ( how dare you Paul, you're the cute fluffy lightweight one!) then went & did what very few other musicians could match - write excellent songs; not all of them were, but then we don't sl*g the old blues guys who kept on going til their death despite the fact that resulting albums rarely had anything to match their reputation sealing classics. John & Paul both had egos. John & Paul both had their very human faults. John & Paul both had their moments of brilliance during their Beatle years & solo careers, along with low points. But in our  "pop" culture, Lennon has attained the status of sainthood, while Paul had to live on under that shadow, so how can he win ?
Oh well, it could be worse. He could've replaced Peter Gabriel in Genesis. Just look at  the denigration the some will spew over that subject as if they're making "objective" statements instead of "subjective" judgements ... 

Edited by pantacruelgruel - March 24 2007 at 23:53