Now that the dust has settled, who was the best Beatle?

Now that the dust has settled, who was the best Beatle?

Other urls found in this thread:

nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/the-best-beatle-why-ringo-of-course
metro.co.uk/2015/07/07/happy-75th-birthday-ringo-starr-heres-10-reasons-why-he-was-actually-the-coolest-beatle-5284237/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringo_Starr_discography
youtube.com/watch?v=eAU0l7325w0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

dingo

Paul

I used to be a John loser and then a George weeny but as I became older I realized Paul was the brains and gentleman of the group

Why it's the obvious choice, kind sir!

George obviously.

...

john lennon is the best one

paul is the skinny white boy answer and george is the hipster answer

ringo was best boy

>Paul
He was better off without the other three.

This. Worst person in the group probably but also most interesting.
Just like with Velvet Underground, people underrate lyrical innovation.

This. Next...

>tfw this board is filled with people who listened to one Beatles album and think they're experts
It's obviously Ringo.
He was the brains, the braun, the charisma, the backbone, and the talent, all in one.
Without Ringo, the "Beatles" were nothing.
NOTHING

I don't remember Ringo being nearly that ugly

What makes you say that, friend?

This is kinda true... I can't imagine them with anyone else on drums.

yoko obviously

literally could've been replaced at any point in their career

Nice rebuttal, jackass
You Lennon lesbians and Paul pricks never want to admit the truth.
Don't even get me started about the Harrison homos

>Ringo Starr never played more than 2 takes on all of his drum tracks while recording with the Beatles

I very kindly asked you why you chose Ringo as your favorite. No need for your hostility.

Source?

technically Pete Best was the Best Beatle.

Sure, that's what you SAY.
You can point out all his criticisms but can't give an alternative????
YOU have LOST, kiddo.

John overall had a more consistently great solo career but all things must pass is by far the best solo Beatle album

Excuse me?

I want some of whatever you're smoking that would make you have such a wrong opinion.

George desu

All Things Must Pass is as good as any Beatles album. John made some pretty bad albums desu

Get off my board

What? We're just telling him our answer.

He was so fucking good looking. It's not fair.

People who think this have never been in a band.

Ringo was a fucking cool dude and the other three loved having him around. The comradarie among the four of them was part of why they were such a great band.

They were all good in their own ways. John was the introspective one, Paul was the talented one, George was the multicultured one, Ringo was Ringo. You have to measure them by specific merits to determine a "best".

thanks dad

who cares they're all basically the same person anyways

But you posted an objectively wrong answer

Paul > George > John > Ringo

all of them had their moments thought

GET OFF MY BOARD YOU SICK BRAINDEAD DISGUSTING EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING MOTHERFUCKER

*though

Holy fuck this board is more hostile than I thought it'd be.

Get off my board you subhuman poptimist piece of shit

**this thread, not board.

it's just Sup Forums's "elitist" nature, it's not meant to be taken seriously at all

all you need is love

I figured, but still, some guy wanted to behead me for asking why he liked ringo.

Because you gave no EVIDENCE
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS
You shat on Ringo without giving any reasons why or any alternatives
For that, you deserve your shame.

Dude, chill. Ringo was talented, but you need to provide evidence that he had a large body of written material that was any good.

Bear in mind, I also really like Ringo and Goodnight Vienna as well as just about every song he did with the Beatles. But comon

Well you weren't specific enough with your reasons, frankly, sir. They're too general

>He was the brains, the brawn, the charisma (etc.)

Do you have any SPECIFIC examples of this in the music/concerts of the beatles or no?

Paul was the absolute worst Beatle. The only good thing that he did in the Beatles was Helter Skelter, which fucking got someone killed. The only good thing he did outside of the Beatles was Paul II, which brought John out of retirement and got him fucking killed.

This one

Me, I'm The Beatle now

nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/the-best-beatle-why-ringo-of-course
metro.co.uk/2015/07/07/happy-75th-birthday-ringo-starr-heres-10-reasons-why-he-was-actually-the-coolest-beatle-5284237/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringo_Starr_discography

youtube.com/watch?v=eAU0l7325w0

I love you

I shall politely ask if you've listened to this album before.

>Lady Madonna
>Penny Lane
>Yesterday
>Hello Goodbye
>Blackbird
>We Can Work it Out
>Paperback Writer
wew lad

I don't like any of those songs except we can work it out, and that's mainly due to John's parts

Paul was objectively the best musician.
John was the most "soulful" songwriter, or at least he wrote the most songs that genuinely move me.

>John was the most "soulful" songwriter, or at least he wrote the most songs that genuinely move me.

Definitely your opinion, because I feel that Paul takes this category as well. He was more poetic when John was more edgy.

>John was the most "soulful" songwriter
That's George

>quirky fun song #1
>quirky fun song #2
>quirky sad fun song
>quirky fun song #3
>just a worse "while my guitar gently weeps"
>quirky fun song #4
>quirky fun song #5

In The Beatles - Paul.
Solo - George.

OB LA DI OB LA DA
YOUR MOTHER SHOULD KNOW
WHEN I'M 64
MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER
very deep much wow inspiring

If you put George Harrison ahead of Paul and John then you're an absolute fucking pseud, no exceptions. The man was extremely talented but clearly not the driving force behind The Beatles's greatest achievements, and All Things Must Past is not even a top five solo album.

>Implying quirky is bad

GOOD SOLO BEATLES ALBUMS
>Lennon
5
>McCartney
14
>Harrison
4
>Starr
2

>cherry picking

Listen to A Day In The Life and tell me Paul is more moving or even poetic

He also wrote Yesterday.
A song which made John so bitter, because he knew it was better than anything he ever wrote. Including Imagine.

He was

It gets old.

but the lennon ones are better than the mccartney ones even if there are less good ones

Imagine is literally John's worst song
>Imagine no possessions
>Written by an extremely famous millionaire in a huge mansion

...

Can we really count him since he was only on one album?

What's your favorite album from each one?

more like
>lennon
1
>mccartney
like 3 or 4 maybe
>harrison
1 and a half
>starr
none on his own merits

He wasn't telling people to get rid of their possessions, he was just telling people to consider what it'd be like without them. He admits in the song that it's hard to consider it himself

McCartney

Paul - RAM
John - Imagine
George - All Things Must Pass
Ringo - All Things Must Pass

>Lennon
1. Plastic Ono Band
2. Imagine
3. Mind Games
4. Double Fantasy
5. Shaved Fish

>McCartney
1. Ram
2. Band on the Run
3. Back to the Egg
4. McCartney
5. McCartney II
6. London Town (cause I can't resist)

>Harrison
1. All Things Must Pass
2. George Harrison
3. 33 1/3
4. Dark Horse
5. Cloud 9

>Ringo
1. Ringo
2. Goodnight Vienna
3. Ringo's Rotogravure
4. Stop & Smell the Roses
>5. that's all I've heard by Ringo

But Paul provided a massive part of the emotional content of that song. The atonal orchestral conclusion (which was Paul's idea and which he conducted with George Martin) does not hit as hard without his wistful piano arrangement that preceded it

I would trade that orchestral conclusion to get rid of Paul's 9th-grade level writing verse.

>But Paul provided a massive part of the emotional content of that song. The atonal orchestral conclusion (which was Paul's idea and which he conducted with George Martin) does not hit as hard without his wistful piano arrangement that preced
Without Lennon writing the song itself, Paul would never have thought of it

>Written by an extremely famous millionaire in a huge mansion
>who donated money to charity
>who played concerts for charity
>who ruined his solo career to spread peace & love message
>who walked away from being a rock star to be a stay at home dad

>Can we really count him since he was only on one album?
*Two albums
Not really. Show me a song that really bears his soul as isn't artistically dishonest.

Silly Love Songs

John Lennon. They were all ridiculously important regardless of anyone's denial, but he was the most important catalyst for pushing the Beatles further and further into strange territory. He had a blend of George's "spiritual" inkling and Paul's knack for solid pop hooks, was the most abstract lyricist, and he was the one who most often tried to get the rest of the band, along with George Martin and Geoff Emerick, to think outside the box of preconceived notions of what the Beatles sound was or was supposed to be.

And, for as short as it was, he had the best, most consistent, and most concise solo career. He was completely sure what he wanted to do before the Beatles even broke up.

What was the second? I know he was on Let It Be but what was the other? Abbey Road? The White Album?

The song is literally about meaningless songs. Bad try
He is playing the organ on "I Want You (She's So heavy)". It was one of the first songs tracked for the album, and Billy was still hanging around. For what it's worth, legend is that if they hadn't broken up, he would have officially joined as a fifth Beatle though.

His organ on I Want You is amazing, I must add

>The song is literally about meaningless songs. Bad try

Can you answer the question posed by the song multiple times?

>What's wrong with that?

>listening to music for lyrics
Are you touched in the head? You think John's lyrics can compare to Yeats or any great poet? Judge them outside the music and you'll immediately see that they're full of juvenile drug references and asides revolving around his uninteresting film career. You listen to music for the way the words are intoned, not the words themselves. Paul's lyrics compliment his melody perfectly, which is what he intended.

>Without Lennon writing the song itself, Paul would never have thought of it
Without Paul thinking of the orchestral conclusion and the piano arrangement, the song wouldn't be considered one of the greatest pop records of all-time. You can't use Paul's own work to argue that this work is superior to Paul's. Think of another emotive John track; there's lots of them.

>who donated money to charity
wow the black panthers such an honorable cause huh
>played concerts for charity
wow it's not like every musician ever does this
>ruined his solo career to spread peace and love message
Ruining his career wasn't his intention
>walked away from being a rock star to be a stay at home dad
He was actually a stay at home heroin junkie at this time

>listening to music for lyrics
Most music I listen to doesn't even have lyrics. I don't find John's lyrics particularly good, but they're leagues better than Paul's. Paul's are so bad that they detract from the music even if you attempt to ignore them.
And anyways, the original point is about writing, so it's ridiculous to not count it.

>He was actually a stay at home heroin junkie at this time
He was pretty much done with that when they were making Abbey Road.

>what's wrong with being artistically dishonest?
>Without Paul thinking of the orchestral conclusion and the piano arrangement, the song wouldn't be considered one of the greatest pop records of all-time.
Incorrect, Lennon had the piano arrangement.
Not entirely. it's one of the greatest songs because of the sum of all parts. Not solely because of Paul.
>wow the black panthers such an honorable cause huh
What's wrong with it?
>wow it's not like every musician ever does this
Not relevant
>Ruining his career wasn't his intention
Intentionally sacrificing commercial potential to spread his political message? it was.
>He was actually a stay at home heroin junkie at this time
[citation needed]

>You think John's lyrics can compare to Yeats or any great poet?
Irrelevant to the discussion. McCartney was no Beethoven or Ellington.

How is the song artistically dishonest? Paul's literally saying he just wants to write silly love songs.

user who said Paul was objectively the better musician and Lennon the more soulful one here btw.

>Silly Love Songs
>what's wrong with being artistically dishonest?
>clearly has not heard the song

>You think John's lyrics can compare to Yeats or any great poet?
You think ANY songwriter can?

Nice goalpost shifting btw

How is love not soulful?

>>clearly has not heard the song
>implying that's not one of his top 10 bass lines ever
Nice try though. Let me know when you have an actual argument
How is it, specifically?

Quote the post where I said McCartney wasn't soulful.
How is it artistically dishonest?