OK...I know this probably been asked/polled before (and we all know that "polls" really don't mean shit <img src="https://sigforum.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif" alt="Wink" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:;)-->)...SooooWho was/is the most talented member of the Beatles (song writing, singing, instrument playing, solo and just being personable and all)...Paul McCartneyGeorge HarrisonJohn LennonRingo StarrThat Beatle who's name we can't rememberNone of the above...the Beatles were only good togetherI hate the Beatles...I'm glad they are all deadSlim Whitman

yoko.

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.)

quote:

Originally posted by YellowJacket:
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.)

Let alone his other contributions to music over the years.

If we look at bodies of work, you'd have to go with Paul. Beatles. Wings. Solo. The guy is pretty amazing.

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

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.

quote:

Originally posted by lechiffre:
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

I think I'll go with this answer ^^

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.

I went with this answer.

quote:

None of the above...the Beatles were only good together

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

It's a tie between Pete Best & Stu Sutcliffe.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:
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.

Probably McCartney overall, but Lennon was a great songwriter. It is close, but Paul was better at more things.

I voted for Ringo because he never gets any love. Plus we wouldn’t have octopus’s garden without him

Paul. I don't think it was close.

Ringo. He married a Bond Girl.

quote:

Originally posted by Green Highlander:
Ringo. He married a Bond Girl.

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.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by jigray3:
Harrison...

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.

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.