I don't know very much about the Beatles, though I know a lot of their songs. But, I have a friend who is a huge Beatle fan, and we both said we'd go with George Harrison if we were forced to choose one.

 

So, my question to all of you is which one is your choice? I'm pretty much doing this because I'd like to get the views of some of the older members who've had more time and experience with the band.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone who says Ringo should be banned.

Its hard to say, because each of them is so incredibly talented, that it really comes down to personal taste. I think it is Paul McCartney, but it would impossible to argue with anyone who said either John or George.

Paul. The guy can play almost any instrument and has the strongest voice of them all. Anytime you hear GOOD drumming on a Beatles song ("Rain" being an example), it's Paul.

Pete Best. No doubt about it in my mind.

 

If we are limiting this to the Fab 4, I'd go Paul with one caveat, it was so much better with Lennon around.

the dung....beatle

If we're talking musically, it's Paul. He can pretty much do it all. He can play any instrument and can come up with a great tune for a song in about 5 minutes. He's a genius.

 

If we're talking lyrically, it's John. If you have listened to any of his work, with the Beatles or as a solo artist, you know what I mean.

If we're talking musically, it's Paul. He can pretty much do it all. He can play any instrument and can come up with a great tune for a song in about 5 minutes. He's a genius.

I don't disagree, but why has he been unable to come up with great tunes for 20+ years? Same thing with the Rolling Stones. How is it that these guys with all this talent aren't able to evolve and keep making relevant music?

John. Mostly for the writing. Then the voice. Paul was the better musician. George was a hell of a guitar player but didn't go too much beyond that. Ringo....well he was the elder statesman.

ringo

I don't disagree, but why has he been unable to come up with great tunes for 20+ years? Same thing with the Rolling Stones. How is it that these guys with all this talent aren't able to evolve and keep making relevant music?

 

Dude, did you hear his last album (Chaos and Creation...)? It's outstanding. Seriously outstanding.

 

To answer the question, it's hard to say what you mean by 'talented' but as far as melodies go and musically speaking, gotta go with Paul. Lyrically, John.

best solo album by a beatle

 

 

it's really awesome

Edited November 16, 200619 yr by mr_genius

John or George

I don't disagree, but why has he been unable to come up with great tunes for 20+ years? Same thing with the Rolling Stones. How is it that these guys with all this talent aren't able to evolve and keep making relevant music?

 

I love the stuff Wings did for the most part. Have any of the solo Paul albums actually been considered "junk"? None of it might stand up to The Beatles, but really, can anybody expect them to? The Beatles are a great band, but part of what made them so great was the absence of bands to put them up against. Today Paul is facing up against all the people that learned from what he did. If there was still the void in music as there was at the time, then his stuff would be viewed differently. Look at how many bands existed then, as opposed to now. It's harder to stand out now, even if you are Paul.

 

As for The Stones, they just turned lazy. Plus, I question who was the real talent in that band. IMO Ron Wood is easily the best one in there, but I have a feeling they still limit him. It's all about Keith and Mick, and neither one of them are all that good. Let Ron write an entire album and you will have something to talk about.

 

Heck...I have an idea...let's pair Ron with Rod again and see what happens...