/best beatle/

Why was he so much better than the other three?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/vx5QxoWCG-I
youtu.be/BzwDS6jTtos
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because he made these albums.

She Came In Through The Bathroom Window is amazing

Red Rose Speedway? Really?

As far as 1970-1980 goes...
Ram > Band On The Run > McCartney > Back To The Egg > Wild Life > McCartney II > London Town > Venus and Mars > Wings at the Speed of Sound > Red Rose Speedway

the other ones were ugly and loser faggots
he was the main dude and the most likeable

Probably because he was the only one who was completely likable.
>George was the weird quiet guy
>Ringo was the unnattractive butt of the joke
>John was the narcissistic wife beater
Paul is just a fun guy that makes great music

basically this

>inb4 a bunch of soyboys run up in here telling us all about how gr8 george was

Lol this

George thread?

John was a cunt but he wrote most of their best songs.

>Strawberry Fields Forever
>Tomorrow Never Knows
>Happiness Is A Warm Gun
>Rain
>Ticket To Ride
>Hey Bulldog
>In My Life
>I Want You (She's So Heavy)
>Come Together
>Day Tripper
>Norwegian Wood
>Help!
>Dear Prudence
>She Said She Said

I love the four of them equally and of course Paul helped make many of those songs I listed great (basslines on Rain and Hey Bulldog for example), but when it comes down to who wrote the most great songs for the band, John has to be the winner. Paul is probably the greatest of all time at writing melodies, but John had that experimental edge that helped push them further and further. All four Beatles were of course experimental and innovative in their own ways, it's just that almost all of the standout experimentations in their discography are Lennon compositions.

Don't get me wrong, Here There And Everywhere, Penny Lane, For No One and plenty others are as good as John's best work - it's just that John pumped out more masterpieces.

Fuck their solo careers, who even gives a shit about those.

>implying Ringo isn't best Beatle
Ringo wrote Octopus's Garden. All those songs pale in comparison.

My mate is just recently getting into the Beatles and that is currently his favourite song on Abbey Road. I don't know whether to be delighted or disgusted, or whether to call him a plebeian or a patrician.

He came from a family of musicians, so he know his shit way before the other three.

If your friend is a Ringo fan, then, he is certainly a Patrician, and you know you should be glad.

Depends on how you look at it. John was never keen on characters and large themes in the songs he wrote himself. Paul continued to work his ass off musically, while Lennon went full Socrates. Yoko Ono was Imperial Japan's revenge for Britain humiliating them in WWII.

>Britain humiliating them in WWII.
The war with Japan was largely with America and a little bit with the USSR towards the end. I don't think Japan would have very much beef with Britain.

Yeah, okay Glansberg. They've got a board for that.

I find all the solo careers to be distinctly mediocre for the most part, except for a handful of very good albums. They needed each other to work well, I think.

>Paul needed John to rein in all the saccharine "granny shit" and to avoid becoming too whimisical. In The Beatles, Paul balanced these songs out with meatier rockers like Helter Skelter, outside of The Beatles and left to his own devices he made a lot of corny, sentimental fluff.

>John needed Paul to rein him in on his often over indulgent experimentation and avant garde pursuits once Yoko came into the equation. A lot of John's Beatles songs are fantastic and innovative on a conceptual level, like SFF and TMK, but required Paul's input to keep them focused and actually work on paper. Once the band broke up, John had the freedom to go too far into the avant garde and consequently failed a few times. His strongest commercial effort, Imagine, was actually him writing McCartney songs, in my opinion.

>George needed the pressure of having to write songs of a very, very high standard to be featured on an album that the Beatles gave him. Sure, he didn't enjoy it all too much, but when you're fighting to get your songs on Revolver or Abbey Road, they better be fucking excellent. As a solo artist he, like John, lost a lot of focus and urgency of his Beatles days, and as a result made a lot of meandering, light songs which were sonically pleasing but rarely superbly crafted pieces of songwriting. Within You Without You works on Sgt Pepper because of what becomes before and after, and how it works as a sort of midway bridge on that album. But when he's writing similar songs on a solo triple album they can start to drag.

Ringo was the alpha tho.

you forgot tug of war, flowers in the dirt, flaming pie, run devil run, driving rain, and memory almost full

ringo seems like a chill guy, not especially talented as a songwriter though

>Red Rose Speedway? Really?
Yes really. It's my 2nd favorite of his albums.

To add to my points here I think when you put them all together, the balance of their wildly differing approaches to songwriting is what created (in my opinion) the best band of all time. Throw in Ringo whose drumming perfectly complemented their styles and pieced their sounds together brilliantly and you have arguably the best four man lineup imagineable in rock music.

It's just that the very same thing that made them a great band was the reason for their underwhelming solo careers.

Being bandleader is a double-edged sword I suppose. I mean, you've got a responsibility to make shit happen commercially, but also personally. I think most would have thought Paul most likely to succeed afterwards. Music was his #1 thing, more so than any other member.

George went spiritual. A capable musician, but lacking the songwriting talent and grand ambition.

John started trying to sell Peace like an infomercial product. That didn't produce much. I agree "Imagine" is a much larger than usual Lennon tune, so I do think McCartney's style had an influence. Solo career just seems very lackadaisical.

And Ringo my god. Who the fuck is gonna look after that friendly little guy when all the "real musicians" go off on their own. Ringo, bitch that's who. Signing sketchers deals and living to 1000. Gata don't play no shit.

Paul balanced himself out quite gracefully during his solo days in the 70s.

He wrote this
youtu.be/vx5QxoWCG-I
and this in the same year
youtu.be/BzwDS6jTtos

I think after John died he stopped caring, which is why every McCartney release after McCartney II is subpar. Excluding Flaming Pie, but that was actually recorded while Linda was dying of cancer. Sorrow is the most effective emotion when it comes to strong songwriting.

How do you rank his albums from McCartney-McCartney II?

here is the real beatles truth, detached from Sup Forums hivemind and viewing them with a historic context

paul just wrote tin pan alley melodies, really conservative songwriter. boring alright bassist though

george has no talent, indian music was vaguely interesting

john is a literal conman type of performer. stole melodies, lyrics, everything. alright singer, horrible rhythm and generally bad at whatever instruments he played. experimentations were sometimes cool

ringo was decent drummer

the who were 100x the beatles songwriters, performers, vision, but soyboys on Sup Forums get triggered by classic rock and need their cuddly fab four / beach boys

I like the Who a lot too man, but you need to kys. Solo McCartney's best album is still better than the best Who album.

Haven't heard McCartney II whole because the tracks I heard from it were awful but as for the others:
Red Rose Speedway > or = Venus and Mars > RAM > Band on the Run > Wild Life > McCartney I > Back To The Egg > Londontown > Speed of Sound

Embarrassing. Kill yourself

If you think McCartney II has awful songs on it, maybe you should broaden your musical horizons before returning to it for another listen. It's pretty experimental, for 1979.

>broaden your musical horizons
My 'music horizons' are already pretty broad. It was just the songs I heard off it were bad. Especially that god damn "Temporary Secretary" song.

Might give the album A listen later

Do you like Sparks or the Talking Heads?

Temporary Secretary is an excellent pop song.

>Do you like Sparks or the Talking Heads?
I listened to Remain In Light when a friend recd it to me and enjoyed it quite a bit. Enjoyed other stuff I heard from them. (Probably "entry level" experience with them I know.)

Sparks I haven't heard.

>Temporary Secretary is an excellent pop song.
Bullshit. I've heard plenty of 'excellent pop songs' from McCartney that were much better than that trash heap.

If you dislike it, it's not because it's bad. It's because you don't get it.

it looks like mccartneys left eye is melting off his face when i see the thumbnail for that picture

>It's because you don't get it.
That feels like a copout excuse.
Do I need a 'certain level of intelligents' too?

No, you need to have a sense of humor, and a better understanding of low brow experimental pop. Do you like David Bowie?

>Do you like David Bowie?
Course I do. He's my favorite musician.
And as much as I like McCartney he'd probably never reach the quality Bowie has.

The first one is the sweetest fucking song about sex, I tell you. Also Flaming Pie is his best solo album, honestly.

I'd give the edge to The Who, honestly, but The Beatles just run circles around them. Though the bands worked well for eachother, The Who worked because of the sonic powers of their musicians which helped a lot while The Beatles were way more self-contained and worked best for eachother's styles. You can't take one from one band and put it in the other, they wouldn't really work. Still the best two bands out of 60's England.

Think of London Town, Back to the Egg, and McCartney II as being Paul's equivalent to Bowie's Berlin trilogy.

Both were
>influenced by heavy drug use
>recorded during turbulent times in their respective personal lives
>experimenting with electronic instruments

If you can appreciate a song like What In The World, its not a long shot to be able to like a song like Temporary Secretary. Its even a sonically superior song.

I've heard those first 2 and I can damn well confirm they have nothing in common with Berlin musically aside from the eletronic elements. And I know Bowie had better use of them.

Bad example using "What In The World" since that was one of my least favorites from Low.

Then looks like you've pigeon holed yourself as a pleb.

>you've pigeon holed yourself as a pleb
Oh good you're using the pleb/patrician bullshit seriously. Now I don't have to take you seriously.

Don't take anything seriously. Maybe then you'll grow a brain of your own.

you are so wrong, user.

Speaking as a dyed in the wool Who fan, let me explain to you why you are not only wrong, you must leave Sup Forums forever and never post here again...........

Paul
Want you meant to say is he wrote easily memorable catchy pop melodies that was/is pleasing to the ear, and people enjoy listening and singing along to, and you've never picked up a bass in your life and couldn't play it to save your life.

George
Tremendously talented guitar player, and was 1000x better than John could ever hope to be. In fact, when John played leads, he basically ripped off what George had done.

John
A clever lyricist and song writer who wrote a majority of The Beatles better most popular songs, something you don't know how to do and never will. Why even live?

Ringo
An excellent drummer with an unusual sense of timing who knew how to utilize crash cymbals to flesh out a song and breathe life into them. Fine examples are Rain, and She Said X2.

OK, granted The Beatles could never write a song like The Ox, but then again, The Who could never write a song like Helter Skelter.

That being said, the song She's So Fine by The Jimi Hendrix Experience is the best piss take on The Who I've ever heard in my life so far!

For me, Paul McCartney is the greatest musician of the 20th century. He will live on, being talked about in centuries to come. Augustus, Gengis Khan, Newton, Mozart, Paul McCartney.

TEMPORARY
SECRETARY

>Recognizing Beatles by sight
>Knowing which Beatle was which