The Beatles poll!

Since Yoko is not an option I'll go with John. I dug his mindset.

Surprised Harrison is leading by that much.  

Q: When will a group come along and overtake The Beatles in terms of "massive-ness"???

and after they have produced albums for less than 10 years...

Incredible...this poll is still active after more than 1 year.... 

Always been a McCartney fan, even though many of my favorite individual Beatle songs were written by John (e.g Walrus, Strawberry Fields).  Paul was more consistently great, and his solo career (incl Wings) was miles better than any other Beatle, IMO.


Edited by HolyMoly - October 19 2011 at 08:22

thehallway wrote: 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.

I sort of agree. I mean, it does interest me to read of their personal struggles to get to where they did. But yeah, if I am asked who the better musician of a few people is, I will talk about the better musician and not about who is the 'underdog', who 'deserves my sympathy' or who is more 'charismatic'.  I understand that people connect to charismatic frontmen and I do too but it doesn't get in the way for me.

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.

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.

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.