Who was the best Beatle?

Who was the best Beatle?

strawpoll.me/11667061

I say George because he was talented (unlike Ringo), a decent guy (unlike John), and not blinded by profit (unlike Paul)

>people think the other 3 Beatles are anywhere near Paul's level

>still talking about this

>and not blinded by profit
>drove multiple Rolls and Bentleys
>lived in a mansion
>was pissed at Yoko for eating his muffin

>talented
I'll give you that.
>(unlike Ringo)
I won't give you that. Ringo has one of the most memorable drumming styles ever, more so than any of the other Beatles' styles on their own main instruments. Ringo's not great but he's easily recognizable and that counts for something.
>a decent guy (unlike John)
All of the Beatles hit their wives, Paul the least but he did it too. George also cheated on his wife.
>not blinded by profit (unlike Paul)
George was the most materialistic out of all them, and yes, I say that knowing about his interests in eastern culture.

I mean, you do know what Taxman is about, right?

Mind you, I'd probably want to hang out with George out of all of them, but all of the fab four had similar faults.

Swae Lee, closely followed by Slim Jimmy

Paul because he was the best musician and the best songwriter and the best

paul too bad he got replaced by faul

the beatles suck lol

Fuck you brian you're a hack

I like Yoko but I would still be miffed at the loss of my muffin.

>a decent guy (unlike John)

Why the fuck would that matter in music? He's not my roommate.

I'm actually enrolled in a History of the Beatles class and we talk about how fucked up every one of the Beatles was individually.

Personally, I like George the best. His songwriting was great, he didn't have a superego, and his solo career was 8/10 easily. Plus his style of guitar playing changed music just as much as Jimi or Clapton did, and gets a tenth of the credit.

John was great as well, his songs stand out as some of the Beatles best. I mean he did beat his wife, cheat on Cynthia, and get pretty crazy with Yoko towards the end, yeah. But I feel like his message of peace despite being violent was less of hypocrisy and more of what he truly wanted for himself and everyone else. Plus he had a pretty fucked up childhood, all things considered. And he knew he had been shitty, that's what "Starting Over" was about. I feel like if he hadn't been assassinated, he'd have a completely different legacy. His solo career was 10/10, too.

Ringo is Ringo.

Paul, I feel, had just as much of a hand in breaking up the Beatles as John and Yoko. I think it's shitty that he originally placed the blame on Yoko and people still blame her for the breakup, when really it had more to do with Brian's death and the repercussions. His songwriting was always smarmy and John helped him add edge to it, but when they started drifting apart and didn't check on each other you get bullshit like Maxwell's Silver Hammer (and adversely you get the avant-garde shit John was farting out, only half of which were actually good). While early on Paul had some of my favorite (I won't say best) songs, when the McCartney/Lennon duo broke his work got much worse. Plus his solo career was like 4/10 at most.

Paul is the most talented overall.
John had the greatest flashes of brilliance.
George is the most interesting character study.
Ringo is the best man.

lol
They all cheated. Unfortunately in the Beatles situation, cheating isn't much of a discredit to any of them considering they all did it, a lot.

also,
>George was the most materialistic out of all of them
Explain? Later in life he bought that mansion on the Thames and indulged just as much as any megastar, but he stayed pretty isolated and didn't crave attention.

I used to think Paul was the best, but then I listed out my favorite Beatles songs and John had the biggest hand in writing the majority of my favorites. I suggest everyone do the same thing just to see if they have a similar outcome.

More of a George/John guy but Paul had Yesterday, Lovely Rita, I've Just Seen a Face, The Night Before, so so much of Sgt Peppers, And I Love Her, Can't Buy me Love, etc. I feel like early on his songwriting was the best but by the White Album, Abbey Road, and Let it Be it was just mostly garbage.

Paul McCartney's solo career (particularly in the 70s) was just as good and sometimes better than the Beatles.

For instance, both Ram and Band on the Run are better than anything by the Beatles. Also, Wings' worst album (Red Rose Speedway) is better than The Beatles worst album (Beatles For Sale).

Hey man everyone has their own opinion and it's okay that yours is very wrong, Paul.

It takes a long time to listen to new music that you've never heard before, I know. Take your time though, and someday you should listen to McCartney, Ram, Wings' discography, and McCartney II.

George Harrison is the best imho

I have, it's just smarmy. McCartney without Lennon just isn't right.

Also on a separate note, am I the only one here who thinks Rubber Soul was garbage? At least in terms of Beatles albums. The only songs off that album that are any good are In My Life and Norwegian Wood. The rest sound like Beatles B Sides.

Maybe that's just me, though.

I agree partially, I would add Nowhere Man to the good song list though.

Lennon is by far more smarmy than McCartney. What do you think smarmy means?

You Won't See Me always gets forgotten in this discussions and it's a real shame imo

As an album, it's probably their most consistent. Not a bad song on the whole thing.

man, how could I forget that song? Great song.

Nowhere Man is good, but I wouldn't call it a Beatles classic.
Eh 5/10 considering the Beatles catalog
So turns out I've been misusing smarmy all my life. My bad. I guess the word I'm looking for is campy. Lennon wasn't wrong when he said Paul wanted to write "granny music"

Ehhh, Drive My Car and Run for Your Life aren't too good imo. I mean this is considering the scope of the Beatles, so in any other situation they'd be fine. I just feel while it's consistent, it just lacks the substance of other Beatles albums.

I really love nowhere man because I associate it with the really beautiful scene from Yellow Submarine that has that song in it. That being said, I really can't be objective about it. It might not be great, but I love it.

That's fair. I still have yet to see Yellow Submarine.

It is first and foremost a kids movie, but the great animation, (obviously) great songs, and (usually) funny jokes are more than enough to make it worth the watch.

george harrison

All things must pass is better than anything the beatles did imo

I personally love his "granny music". But I totally understand your opinion.

I'll give it a watch
That's fair.

>he was so handsome they put him in the back so the other beatles would look better

this.

People really dont appreciate the talent of Paul. Hes talented on all levels of music.

They all sucked individually. The reason the Beatles didn't suck collectively is because they kept one another in check for the most part.

How do you explain the white album (collection of solo written songs while they were still together), Plastic Ono Band, Ram, and All Things Must Pass?

>Ram and Band on the Run are better than anything by the Beatles

holy shit dude Ram is good but come on

Even when they wrote their own songs, their personalities/egos kept one another in check.

For example, O-Bla-Di would be much worse than it is had Paul done it the way he intended. (The reason it sounds the way it does is because John tried to sabotage it by banging on the piano as hard as he could because he hated the song.)

All their solo albums were crap. Most of the best Beatles songs (Happiness is a Warm Gun, Come Together, Sexy Sadie, Norwegian Wood, Help) were written by Lennon, but without the other 3 to keep his bitch-ass rock n roll guru persona on check, he couldn't put together a decent solo album to save his life.

>>>>All their solo albums were crap

>Ram was crap

opinion discarded

>I say George because

stopped reading there

This

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

Wings > Beatles

>all their solo albums were crap

>paul's solo career was a 4/10 at most
wat

ah fuck you why did i even look

>all their solo albums were crap
somehow both subjective and wrong
>he couldn't put together a decent solo album to save his life
see Imagine, Plastic Ono Band, Walls and Bridges, Double Fantasy, Mind games.

And you're forgetting most of those songs you've referenced were in the later Beatles period when he and Paul wrote separately more and more. Hell, he collaborated with Yoko more on most of those songs than Paul.
Wise words from a black man who makes his living off of taking ketamine and screaming over remixed D-side samples of Radiohead's sad computer sounds.

But if you seriously want me to comment on that I will. They aren't measured by commercial success. They're measured by the fact that they are the only band who has ever had that much of an influence on both music and popular culture. People forget the Beatles weren't just a musical phenomenon, they were a cultural phenomenon.

Yep. Especially in comparison to John's massive success as a solo artist and George's "All Things Must Pass", "Living in the Material World", and fuck, even "Cloud Nine" had it's moments.

"Ram" was pretty good, so was "Band on the Run". I'm even a fan of "Wings at the Speed of Sound". But he's had too many misses to call what he has as a solo career even close to George or John. I mean look at him now, his fans come to his shows to watch him and fat David Draiman behind the drums rehash all their favorite Beatles songs.

As a famous musician, there is a certain morbid benefit to be had from dying young.

>Plus his solo career was like 4/10 at most.
New was pretty good.

They're only the band The Beatles could have been.

Eh. It takes something really special for a musician who's been around since the 60's (or 70's, 80's, or 90's) to put out a truly great album. It's not their fault though. The music they got famous from is a tired concept by this time, and if they try something new their conventional fans will skin them alive. It's pretty shitty how we look at albums from aging rock stars, but what can you do?

George. All the musical talent of Paul without the ego, all the vision of John without being a cunt