Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Plowing straight ahead come what may |
OK...I know this probably been asked/polled before (and we all know that "polls" really don't mean shit  )...Soooo******************************************************** "we've gotta roll with the punches, learn to play all of our hunches Making the best of what ever comes our way Forget that blind ambition and learn to trust your intuition Plowing straight ahead come what may And theres a cowboy in the jungle" Jimmy Buffet | ||
|
| Member |
yoko. | |||
|
Caribou gorn |
If Paul only did one thing (write songs/play bass/sing) he would arguably be the greatest ever at that thing. Many won't consider him among the greatest bassists but he was extraordinary. So melodic. And of course he also played a lot of piano and even some lead guitars (Taxman, for instance.) I'm gonna vote for the funniest frog with the loudest croak on the highest log. | |||
|
| Member |
Let alone his other contributions to music over the years. | |||
|
| Staring back from the abyss  |
If we look at bodies of work, you'd have to go with Paul. Beatles. Wings. Solo. The guy is pretty amazing. ________________________________________________________ "Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." Doug Patton. | |||
|
Member |
song writing : John instrument playing (his primary) : George instrument playing (general overall) : Paul just being personable : Ringo best solo album : George best solo career : Paul best singer : They are all passable singers, but Ringo is the weakest second best at everything he is not best at : Paul most talented : Paul _______________________________ Do the interns get Glocks? | |||
|
Get Off My Lawn |
Even though my top 5 Beatles songs are primarily Lennon ones, McCartney was the most talented. His singing and songwriting were top notch of course, but his bass playing was heads and shoulders above his peers in the 60s. I'm not talking about Jaco Pastorius or Jack Bruce kind of playing, but extremely inventive lines and rhythms. The guy was a good guitar player, could play drums, and was the best piano player in the band. Plus from a financial point, McCartney was correct about Allen Klein, and the other Beatles were wrong in hiring him. "I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965 | |||
|
quarter MOA visionary |
I think I'll go with this answer ^^  | |||
|
Member |
I voted for Paul but looking at all their solo work, slightly or more thin. Each one put a necessary individual stamp on the group, anyone else would have changed the dynamic considerably. The Beatles defined synergy. Set the controls for the heart of the Sun. | |||
|
Legalize the Constitution |
I went with this answer.
I will admit, however, that this answer (supplied in the OP) doesn’t really respond to the question. When I was 14 I would have said, Paul McCartney _______________________________________________________ despite them | |||
|
Mensch |
It's a tie between Pete Best & Stu Sutcliffe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Yidn, shreibt un fershreibt" "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." -Bomber Harris | |||
|
| Awaits his CUT of choice |
I would vote Paul. I agree they were better collectively than as solo artists. As solo acts they each had some highlights but not nearly the amount of great material they produced together. Part of it was probably age and complacency possibly compounded by substance abuse affected their solo work. A large part of their success as the Beatles I chalk up to the fact that they came up together and were not afraid to criticize each other's ideas. By the time the Beatles split up they were all living legends and had individual free reign to produce their stuff without much push back.
| |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
Probably McCartney overall, but Lennon was a great songwriter. It is close, but Paul was better at more things. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
Member |
I voted for Ringo because he never gets any love. Plus we wouldn’t have octopus’s garden without him  | |||
|
| Internet Guru |
Paul. I don't think it was close. | |||
|
Member |
Ringo. He married a Bond Girl. "You know, Scotland has its own martial arts. Yeah, it's called Fuck You. It's mostly just head butting and then kicking people when they're on the ground." - Charlie MacKenzie (Mike Myers in "So I Married an Axe Murderer") | |||
|
| Get Off My Lawn |
One of the most puzzling things about the Beatles is why did Lennon, and to a certain extent, McCartney, marry their fucked up wives? My respect for Lennon has never been full given his choice of Yoko, a gold-digging wench who has never done an honest day's worth of ANYTHING in her life. Even Keith Richards, a drug addled guitar player, managed to get that aspect of life somewhat correct. "I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965 | |||
|
Too clever by half |
Harrison was younger and a late bloomer as a songwriter, overshadowed and intimidated by the collaboration and personalities of Lennon/McCartney where the whole was certainly greater than sum of the parts. But, when George grew in confidence, wow. And later, as a solo artist, I found his songwriting more substantial than either Lennon or McCartney alone. But even with the Beatles Something, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Here Comes the Sun, Taxman, and Within You, Without You rank among my absolute Beatles favorites. His guitar work was way ahead of its time. Technique, precision, and originality. Was he the best Beatle? Hard to make that argument give the proliferation of Lennon/McCartney, but I'll make it because his contributions were so damn essential to the sound of the Beatles. "We have a system that increasingly taxes work, and increasingly subsidizes non-work" - Milton Friedman | |||
|
| Member |
I found his solo career the most interesting. FWIW Like Me, his sister was a southern Illinoisan, a fact regularly exploited by St. Louis rocker KXOK. Somehow, as a kid grasping at straws, I always felt an undeserved "brotherhood" with George.  Set the controls for the heart of the Sun. | |||
|
| Member |
If you watched a documentary on the Beatles, it was interesting to note that it claimed that George was the most financially successful Beatle. Who would have guessed that. It was also said that Paul and John kept songs that George wrote. Later in their careers when they were having trouble writing enough songs for a new album, they started to put more of Georges songs on their albums. Everybody will have their own opinion on which songs they liked better or whose voice they liked better. After they broke up and you can find the vids on youtube where John talks about his most hated songs that Paul wrote. He seems bitter in it. One thing he griped about on a few of Pauls songs was that the song had nothing to do with the Beatles or Paul himself for that matter. He wrote song about something other than the band. Wow, how horrible. NRA Life Endowment member Tri-State Gun collectors Life Member | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024