Beatles fans

[vash]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Paul.

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

i agree with this..

[89911]

Paul. I saw a documentary and they were teaching John how to play when they started.

[daepp]

A lot of their technical abilities were rooted in the post production work of Sir George Martin!

[Superman]

Originally Posted by 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 ...

I have to respectfully, but strongly, disagree. In my mind, one of the most striking things about the Beatles' early popularity explosion is that it did not happen suddenly or accidentally. Before their hit records began in 1963, they had completed five tours to Hamburg. In Hamburg, they ate, slept and played music. Hours and hours per day. Literally thousands of gigs. This was the rock and roll equivalent of a perfectly tuned four-cam Porsche engine. If you listen carefully to their records (except for the Tony Sheridan crap), you'll notice that Paul and John are nearly always singing together. What sounds like one voice is actually two. Their harmonies are stunning. Their guitar-playing is fully polished. There is nothing but technical perfection in those earliest (except for the Tony Sheridan crap) recordings.

To answer the OP, Paul was probably technically superior to John. Paul was the brain, John was the heart.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by DAEpperson

A lot of their technical abilities were rooted in the post production work of Sir George Martin!

This. Though it is more than just post - it was orchestration, concept, and execution.

The early Beatles made it clear than they had *something*. Martin helped push them over the edge into genius.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Superman

I have to respectfully, but strongly, disagree. In my mind, one of the most striking things about the Beatles' early popularity explosion is that it did not happen suddenly or accidentally. Before their hit records began in 1963, they had completed five tours to Hamburg. In Hamburg, they ate, slept and played music. Hours and hours per day. Literally thousands of gigs. This was the rock and roll equivalent of a perfectly tuned four-cam Porsche engine.

Malcolm Gladwell talks about this in his book, Outliers. His theme is that it takes 10k hours of practice to become great and that's about how many hours the Beatles played in Hamburg before getting famous in the UK.

[daepp]

+1 - you beat me to it Rick.

He makes the point that they played 'round the clock - in strip bars and the like, 10 - 12 hours a day, seven days a week for several years!

[Superman]

They didn't even use computer chips. No synthesizers. No pyrotechnics, no smoke machines. No vocal pitch correction.

I was listening to Beatles IV last Sunday. Simply stunning. Particularly the vocals.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Superman

They didn't even use computer chips. No synthesizers. No pyrotechnics, no smoke machines. No vocal pitch correction.

I was listening to Beatles IV last Sunday. Simply stunning. Particularly the vocals.

Yes, but touring was a different matter altogether. Not that they didn't have the chops and talent to recreate what they did in the studio. But the pro touring industry was not yet really up to par back then. Part of the reason they stopped touring after only a few years and stuck to studio work for the rest of their career was because stage building, PA systems and pro equipment simply weren't there at that time.

I saw an amazing documentary on this that showed Ringo carrying his bass drum by himself onto the field at (IIRC) the Shea Stadium show. He didn't have a handtruck or a wagon or a roadie. That's insane. And they couldn't hear themselves over the crowds at so many shows. It's not being a prima donna to not want to have to haul, set up and maintain your own gear when you're touring the world. The last thing anyone wants is for one of the stars to get injured or fatigued while doing the stuff roadies are supposed to do. That documentary said at the end that the modern touring industry was founded when the Beatles stopped touring.

[sammyg2]

Paul.
He was the better song writer also.

[MMiller]

Originally Posted by targa911s

yes i agree, but david gilmore's solo stuff has been good.

+1

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

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.

John Lennon wrote Instant Karma and Happy Xmas (War is Over).

Incidentally, My Sweet Lord is playing in the shop here right now.

[John-1977911s]

Paul was the better musician by far. Try playing his piano parts. There are so many crazy and complex cord changes in his piano songs. Then let’s talk about his bass playing, more so of the creativity in the writing of his bass lines. He’s almost up there with Chris Squire, but then again Chris focused solely on bass, song writing & singing. If Paul focused only on bass/vox/song writing his bass playing could have potentially exceeded Chris Squire’s. Paul is also one hell of an acoustic guitar player. I have read comments from John that Paul’s color pallet(chord knowledge) for song writing is so much greater than his. I do love John too though and he made the very most of every god given talent he had.

For Most Talented I’d say…
1_Paul
2_John
3_Ringo
4_George

As a group they were unstoppable…

Here’s a fun fact: Between 1970 and 1980 only Elton John had more top 10 hits than Paul McCartney.

[Superman]

Paul is fairly widely dismissed by much of the bass-playing community. His bass-playing is thought to be over-simple. I've suggested that they (those who criticize Paul's bass-playing) look more closely.

First of all, bass-playing IS simple. Usually. Indeed, as I move upward in competency I am reminded of many things I knew 30 years ago, one of which is that what you DON'T play is often more effective than what you DO play. Often, to make my bass lines more effective in creating a rhythm, I remove notes.

And second, Paul's bass-playing decisions were often friggin' brilliant. If a bass player were to learn the songs on the White Album, I would respect their opinion more. Then again, if a bass player familiarized himself with Paul's work on that album, I'm pretty sure we'd have another Paul fan.

Yeah, Paul was the technical genius. John was the creative/expressive genius.

[ramonesfreak]

much prefer john's approach and attitude and voice but i think clearly paul was technically better at his instrument and composition/arrangement. george's early guitar solos are perfect and to the point. george always surprises me on those early recordings...his solo stuff does nothing for me

i also think ringo is one of the best, most stylish and grooving drummers ever, much like charlie watts but more interesting

as for the early beatles, i think they are incredible even with pete best. in the hamburg days they were a tight, raw rock and roll band, especially for their age. im an obsessed beatles fan and much prefer their early stuff to the older stuff...from the white album on, i dont care much for it

[imcarthur]

Think of the Beatles technically? No. You always have to view their songs as a sum of the parts. The lyrics/message, the performance, Martin's airbrush to bring it together. The legacy of their songs will still stand when most 60s/70s/80s/90s era bands are dim footnotes.

What I find really endearing, is that Paul put at least one song on every album that your grandmother would like . . . and those are the songs that will always be played . . . Till There Was You, And I Love Her, Yesterday, When I'm 64 . . .

Ian

[ramonesfreak]

and if you dont think the beatles are technically gifted, trying playing the guitar parts accurately with the proper chords...aint easy, at all. how they learned that stuff at their age with limited resources i have no idea..even with almost 30 years of playing under my belt i get very frustrated trying to play the early stuff right.

[ramonesfreak]

Originally Posted by Superman

Paul is fairly widely dismissed by much of the bass-playing community. His bass-playing is thought to be over-simple. I've suggested that they (those who criticize Paul's bass-playing) look more closely.

First of all, bass-playing IS simple. Usually. Indeed, as I move upward in competency I am reminded of many things I knew 30 years ago, one of which is that what you DON'T play is often more effective than what you DO play. Often, to make my bass lines more effective in creating a rhythm, I remove notes.

And second, Paul's bass-playing decisions were often friggin' brilliant. If a bass player were to learn the songs on the White Album, I would respect their opinion more. Then again, if a bass player familiarized himself with Paul's work on that album, I'm pretty sure we'd have another Paul fan.

Yeah, Paul was the technical genius. John was the creative/expressive genius.

i agree about paul. the choices he makes are very unusual and lyrical even on the early stuff. simple is not the way i would describe his playing. compare him to rival Bill Wyman and Paul's eclectic and intellectually advanced approach becomes obvious. You rarely hear any recycled riffs or anything "standard" in Paul's playing

Too bad Paul is a bit of a bore post-beatles

[ramonesfreak]

my favorite Paul vocal..such a cool tune. very unusual and british sounding. reminds me of the way Ray Davies wrote and sang

[nostatic]