Beatles fans

[9dreizig]

We got into the discussion last night. Technically speaking who was the best musician John or Paul ? Clearly George was the best guitarist, but who was the 2nd best? What about keyboards ? Obviously both great song writers ,, but how good were they technically ?

[stomachmonkey]

Technical does not always matter.

You think Neil Young or Bob Dylan have good voices?

Meaningful music is so much more than proficiency with an instrument.

The Beatles were great because it was 4 guys who all brought their own ingredients to the kitchen.

They were never as good alone as they were together.

[9dreizig]

no doubt about that Monk,, but the question was purely about their technical proficiencies ..

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

no doubt about that Monk,, but the question was purely about their technical proficiencies ..

Not trying to be argumentative but their proficiency only matters relative to the end product.

Their individual strengths/weaknesses are what made what they created what it was.

There have been tons of "Super Groups" over the years where the individual members are all at the top of their game and the results never lived up to the hype.

Then you've got bands like the Sex Pistols, Vicious was originally a drummer who did not know how to play bass and Lydon was hired in part because of the way he looked, not his vocal skills.

No denying their impact though.

[Tobra]

Paul.

I prefer John's music for the most part though.

[aigel]

Listening to their early stuff makes me laugh sometimes. They were terrible. In later years they had a lot of help from studio musicians, whole orchestras ... what makes the Beatles great isn't their ability to play instruments well. I also think they made poor solo artists. The first of the British Invasion and the band model, fantastic composers ...

The Bob Dylan comparison is great. That guy is my favorite songwriter - but I have a hard time listening to if if he performs himself.

G

[targa911S]

paul

[Rick V]

Originally Posted by targa911S

paul

Yup.
But as stated before it is how they play together.
Floyd is another example, together those guys are the alpha's, separately their music doesn't come close to reaching that level.

[rouxroux]

Paul.



As far as keyboard, Billy Preston

[Rednine11]

I vote for Paul. Look at what he did with Wings after he left the Beatles..
Jet, Band on the Run, Uncle Albert...Silly little love songs..the list goes on.

[red-beard]

This is a PARF discussion...My sister used to pray at the temple of the Beatles...I'll ask her...

[herr_oberst]

Originally Posted by Rednine11

Silly little love songs.

This ONE SONG practically renders his entire contribution to music irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

(Okay, that is total hyperbole. Paul was an integral part of the most popular band in the world.)

But, like John Lennon said, post Beatles in How Do You Sleep, referring to Paul; "The only thing you did was Yesterday"

I always thought that was a pretty clever turn of a phrase.

[GH85Carrera]

Paul.

The amazing thing is he is the imposter after the original Paul died in the car crash!

[targa911S]

Originally Posted by Rick V

Yup.
But as stated before it is how they play together.
Floyd is another example, together those guys are the alpha's, separately their music doesn't come close to reaching that level.

Yes I agree, but David Gilmore's solo stuff has been good.

[recycled sixtie]

I think that as a group the Beatles were excellent much as the above says that it is the total of the four that provided the ingredients. My wife and I while watching American Idol where the singers were doing the 60's songs, we both agreed that we miss these kind of songs, eg. Dusty Springfield etc and the kind of music now is radically different. The 60's was a great time to be in your 20's.

[5String43]

Paul, by far. Also a decent bass player.

Keyboards? The late Billy Preston.

But as others have said, this band is a great case of the whole equaling more than the sum of the parts. Individual chemestry has way of working like that sometimes, doesn't it.

[stomachmonkey]

A good example is Getting Better.

A Paul tune.

Paul was/is upbeat and optimistic.

John was darker and more of a pessimist.

So as Paul is going "It's getting better all the time" John adds in "it can't get more worse"

They balanced each other.

Once that balance was gone you got stuff like Silly Love Songs.

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Paul was the second best musician. But he's not a rocker like John.

Silly Love Songs? Paul wrote equally as many lame tunes as good ones.

Wonderful Christmastime comes to mind.

[stomachmonkey]

You can't really talk about the Beatles without including George Martin who had as much to do with what The Beatles produced as any of the other four.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by Jared at Pelican Parts

Paul was the second best musician. But he's not a rocker like John.

Silly Love Songs? Paul wrote equally as many lame tunes as good ones.

Wonderful Christmastime comes to mind.

Keep in mind they are professional musicians. They get paid to release a song that gets air times and sell music. It would be interesting to know how much money did Silly Love song actually make. I suspect is is nothing to just blow off because it is not part of your "art" and just commercial junk.

We call them "artists" and no doubt a song can change the world, but it is only really done to make money. I love my job but I only show up because I get a paycheck.