[Mule]

Originally Posted by tabs

Your still confused Mule...

One of us is.

The spark of that collorboration was a once in a generation or more phenon. So how can you compare.. a sole career vs a collorboration.

That is exactly what I'm doing. Was Lennon talented, immensely. Is McCartney talented, immensely. The driving force WAS the collaberation. I'll say Lennon 1/3, Mc Cartney 1/3, George & Ringo, 1/6, George Martin 1/6.


Without the Beatles Lennon was far from earth shaking.


Dylan once told Mick Jagger, "I could write Satisfaction but you could never write Ballad of a Thin Man."

Dylan couldn't shine Mick's shoes. You can come with all the artistic this & that you want. The Worlds Greatest Rock & Roll Band only refers to one group. When I go to a show or listen to music, I want to be entertained. Artistic fru fruness won't cut it if the entertainment is not there. Just for reference, about the only great band I haven't see is Pink Floyd.

Dylan writes great songs. You could make a case for him being the best at it. When you say, The Worlds Greatest Rock & Roll Band everyone knows who you're talking about.

With the Fab Four..it was John Lennon that spoke with a conscience and kept them honest and it was Paul that gave them the pop sensibility.

That might be a little over simplistic. John, song writer, very good & creative guitar. Paul, songwriter, great vocals. Do you know how many very talented bands go nowhere due to lack of good vocals, tons of 'em. Compare The Yardbirds' sales to Led Zeppelin's. Biggest difference? I believe they called him "the voice of rock & roll," Robert Plant. I'm a pragmatist. I'f the end product isn't that good, the artsy fartsy aspect doesn't pick up the slack, IMHO.