>The Beatles were the quintessence of instrumental mediocrity. George Harrison was a pathetic guitarist, compared with the London guitarists of those days (Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks, Clapton, Beck and Page of the Yardbirds, and many others who were less famous but more original). The Beatles had completely missed the revolution of rock music (founded on a prominent use of the guitar) and were still trapped in the stereotypes of the easy-listening orchestras. Paul McCartney was a singer from the 1950s, who could not have possibly sounded more conventional. As a bassist, he was not worth the last of the rhythm and blues bassists (even though within the world of Merseybeat his style was indeed revolutionary). Ringo Starr played drums the way any kid of that time played it in his garage (even though he may ultimately be the only one of the four who had a bit of technical competence). Overall, the technique of the "Fab Four" was the same as that of many other easy-listening groups: sub-standard.
>Ringo >the only one of the four who had a bit of technical competence
In a way, but McCartney stopped being "the bassist" of the band as soon as they stopped touring. I associate him with a piano more than anything desu.
Isaiah Thomas
>(even though within the world of Merseybeat his style was indeed revolutionary)
What the FUCK did he mean by this?
Kayden Price
damn scruffy looks like THAT?
Andrew Watson
>George is shit >Paul is shit >Ringo at least has a modicum of talent
>No mention of John
Gee I wonder why that is
Colton Collins
He really just hates them, to call Ringo the most competent is just wrong. And i haven't seen him address their songwriting which is their most obvious strength alongside arrangement and production
John's Rhythm playing was pretty fucking good, Just listen to This Boy and She's women
Jose Anderson
he doesn't' want to get beaten from the grave
Leo Mitchell
Who gives a fuck about technique? This isn't prog rock. The Beatles are primarily songwriters, and secondarily musicians.
Their technical prowess has not, nor will it ever be the point of why they are great. It's not even a relevant criticism.
It's like criticizing an author for not being good at math - it is at most tangential to their craft. And punk has proven this the case for many great musicians, but Scruffi doesn't seem to have a problem with this outside of The Beatles, because he's a just a contrarian dick. He's not even consistent in his ideology.
Ayden Lewis
>criticizing an author for not being good at math
no, its more like criticizing an author for not being good at grammar, you dont necessarily need to be a master at it, or follow all of its rulles (ex James Joyce), but to say it's at most tangential to their craft is ridiculous
William Ortiz
"Rain" and "Day Tripper" proves that Scaruffi doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to Paul's bass playing, but when does he ever know what he's talking about?
Jason Wilson
Yeah, that's definitely a more apt comparison. My point stands though.
Wyatt Powell
>but when does he ever know what he's talking about fucking this. sometimes I feel like I'm the only person on this board that hates his shit writing. He has pretty decent taste, but he's by no means an expert on music
Gabriel Ross
George was a pretty poor guitarist but Paul McCartney was probably the best bassist of the era after Entwistle. So no, Scaruffi's wrong as usual.
