Please. Paul was by far the best all around musician of the four. He had undisputably the best voice, he was a great bassist, pianist, guitarist, and drummer. George? He was a very good guitarist who wrote some great solos but he was far from amazing. Oh but he played sitar so I guess he must be an excellent multi-instrumentalist.

I much prefer George to Paul. Actually Paul really annoys me. All the time.

[QUOTE=PinkFreud]Please. Paul was by far the best all around musician of the four. He had undisputably the best voice, he was a great bassist, pianist, guitarist, and drummer. George? He was a very good guitarist who wrote some great solos but he was far from amazing. Oh but he played sitar so I guess he must be an excellent multi-instrumentalist.[/QUOTE]
Paul's tied with John as my favorite, but as far as the "best voice" thing goes, it's a matter of taste. i think he might have had the most control over his, but it's a matter of who's vocal tone you like best, for the most part.

[QUOTE=Up The Irons]Actually, if you read "John" written by John Lennon's first wife, you find out that Yoko actually is quite a byotch and did in at least someways separate the band.[/QUOTE]

yes, getting information on someone whom your former husband cheated with on you is a great source!

Anyway, Paul was the best bassist and piano player in the band, no doubt about it, and not shabby at the drums either. He also had technically the best voice, but I prefer the tone of John and George's voice though. John was also the better songwriter (when they wrote seperately) and George was the better guitarist. Hell John was a better guitarist then Paul.

Yeah but Paul wasn't really a guitarist. And no, John was a pretty terrible guitarist. Besides, that's why I said he was the best all-around musician.

Sure, which voice you PREFER is subjective but technical ability is objective and honestly, Paul had a bigger range, more power, and was more versatile.

[QUOTE=PinkFreud]Yeah but Paul wasn't really a guitarist. And no, John was a pretty terrible guitarist. Besides, that's why I said he was the best all-around musician.

Sure, which voice you PREFER is subjective but technical ability is objective and honestly, Paul had a bigger range, more power, and was more versatile.[/QUOTE]

Have you ever watched the rooftop performance? All those solos were John's.

Yeah I'd have to agree that Paul's voice is technically the best. But I also like John's voice a lot. I think George was the best all-around musician. He knew how to play a lot of instruments, and was really good at guitar and his sitar playing was pretty sweet. He also wrote some of the Beatles best songs, like While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Here Comes The Sun, and Something. His Solo career was also outstanding.

George Solo > All others.
Paul > John> George > Ringo with Beatles.
Paul = George > John > Ringo talent wise.

Paul's basslines are what made the Beatles the Beatles.

[quote]Paul was a control freak. The other 3 always seemed to have problems with Paul. He didn't like the fact Alen Klein was brought in (even though later he was right) because he wanted to control the band. And he had Linda, who was almost as bad as Yoko if we're talking about interfernce in the band, but no one ever talks about her.[/quote]

Actually, I've read in Tony Bramwell's book that Linda never erally got in the way at all. According to him, it was mainly John bringing Yoko everywhere, such as the studio (the groups' Batcave, if you will), and that caused Paul to start bringing Linda. But I haven't read a single thing to suggest that Linda was anything but polite all the time.

I won't argue that Paul was a control freak, but that's not the only reason he didn't want Klein. The Rolling Stones, who had just gotten rid of Klein, told John and Paul bad things about him, and Paul took it to heart. Klein meanwhile serenaded John by stroking his ego, and George adn Ringo went along with it.

[QUOTE]George Solo > All others.
Paul > John> George > Ringo with Beatles.
Paul = George > John > Ringo talent wise.

Paul's basslines are what made the Beatles the Beatles.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you on pretty much all of that. I still think George is a little better of a musician than Paul, but really close. And George does have the best solo stuff.

I don't know man Ringo is a very talented drummer I don't kno why you made him last talent-wise.


And I agree, George is my favorite solo artist of the Beatles. Some say that John and Paul only allowed George to have a few songs on each record so he was able to pour everything out from over the years especially on early stuff like All Things Must Pass, which is like, my favorite album at the moment.

[QUOTE=Up The Irons]I don't know man Ringo is a very talented drummer I don't kno why you made him last talent-wise.


[/QUOTE]
because he couldn't sing or play any other instruments.

I find myself often skipping over Ringo's songs.

And I also agree on George's solo career being my favorite.

Ringo really isn't that great of a drummer. At least I've never heard anything great from him. But the Beatles weren't exactly a demanding band for a drummer, so I guess it didn't really matter.

[QUOTE=PinkFreud]Please. Paul was by far the best all around musician of the four. He had undisputably the best voice, he was a great bassist, pianist, guitarist, and drummer. George? He was a very good guitarist who wrote some great solos but he was far from amazing. Oh but he played sitar so I guess he must be an excellent multi-instrumentalist.[/QUOTE]

Hear, hear!

I agree with just about everything you said, with the exception of George being a "very good" guitarist.

Actually, he was average at best for a rock guitarist. As far as lead guitar work goes, "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" is one of the most highly regarded Beatle songs. But as many on this forum already know, Eric Clapton played lead on that particular song.

Paul--Bass guitar--Creatively and technically excellent.
John--Rhythm guitar--Creatively excellent, technically average.
George--Lead guitar--Creatively very good, technically average.
Ringo--Drums--Creatively and technically unremarkable. The great Buddy Rich described Ringo's drumming as "adequate", but was generally unimpressed.

[QUOTE=LeperMessiah]Ringo really isn't that great of a drummer. At least I've never heard anything great from him. But the Beatles weren't exactly a demanding band for a drummer, so I guess it didn't really matter.[/QUOTE]

John once stated, quite seriously, that Paul was a better drummer than Ringo.

Even a lot of big Beatle fans aren't aware that Paul (with John's and George Martin's full knowledge and approval) would fairly frequently go in the studio after a recording session, and replace Ringo's sub-par drum tracks with his own.

[QUOTE=hetfieldrocker1]yoko?!?!?! are u kidding me.... she is rediculous.... if u disagree go watch the Rolling Stones Rock n Roll circus..... i think she is a big part of destroying the Beatles[/QUOTE]

There's no doubt she played a definite part in their break-up, though I wouldn't lay the lion's share at her feet.

I think John's unhealthy obsession with her probably played as big a part as her own actions. That along with his out of control drug use, caused a lot of problems within the band. He was pretty unreliable the last couple years or so that they were together.

George and Ringo weren't happy with Yoko's negative influence, either. Paul was simply more vocal in his criticism of her.

[QUOTE=Seafroggys]Paul was a control freak. The other 3 always seemed to have problems with Paul. He didn't like the fact Alen Klein was brought in (even though later he was right) because he wanted to control the band. And he had Linda, who was almost as bad as Yoko if we're talking about interfernce in the band, but no one ever talks about her.[/QUOTE]

John was just as big a control freak, and became increasingly hard to deal with as his drug use escalated, and his obsession with Yoko grew.

Paul had to exert more control, in an effort to keep the band together. He knew as well as anybody that after 1967, the band was steadily coming apart at the seams.

By even the admission of a number of his close friends and associates, John was a deeply flawed human being.

[QUOTE=Music Man]

Even a lot of big Beatle fans aren't aware that Paul (with John's and George Martin's full knowledge and approval) would fairly frequently go in the studio after a recording session, and replace Ringo's sub-par drum tracks with his own.[/QUOTE]

That I did not know.

I do love the drumming on Beatles records is all I am going to say.

[QUOTE=Music Man]John once stated, quite seriously, that Paul was a better drummer than Ringo.

Even a lot of big Beatle fans aren't aware that Paul (with John's and George Martin's full knowledge and approval) would fairly frequently go in the studio after a recording session, and replace Ringo's sub-par drum tracks with his own.[/QUOTE]

you lie.....

Since you seem to know everything about John being a bastard, then you should know that sarcasm and wit were part of his daily routine. It was a joke.

On top of that, being a drummer, I can recognize players just by the sound of the drumming. The drumming on Ballad of John and Yoko and Back in the USSR (Paul's drumming songs) feels far different then every other Beatles song out there.

So that too is a lie.

I don't think John was a control freak (maybe with Paul in the early years)....he wanted out of The Beatles in 1966 (according to one of his early post-Beatles interviews, which may just be anger) because he didn't have the flexibility he needed as an artist....yes, thats more control, but you can't be a control freak if you dont have it.

Ringo's actually a pretty good drummer, as evidenced by the entire [i]Abbey Road[/i] album, but [b]Oh! Darling[/b] in particular.

[quote]I don't think John was a control freak (maybe with Paul in the early years)....he wanted out of The Beatles in 1966 (according to one of his early post-Beatles interviews, which may just be anger)[/quote]

John wasn't really the textbook definition of a control freak, but he was very cocky and egotistical at times. And yeah, John said in the Anthology book that he realized he wanted out while he was filming [i]How I Won the War[/i], which was in 1966.

[quote]John once stated, quite seriously, that Paul was a better drummer than Ringo.

Even a lot of big Beatle fans aren't aware that Paul (with John's and George Martin's full knowledge and approval) would fairly frequently go in the studio after a recording session, and replace Ringo's sub-par drum tracks with his own.[/quote]

The comment you're referring to was an off-hand comment made by Lennon to an interviewer pertaining to Ringo's skill, and as such should not be judged "quite seriously". Come on, the infamous Lennon witticism? Yeah. And as for the whole "Paul went in and re-recorded Ringo all the time" claim, I have never read that, I have never seen/heard [u]anyone[/u] affiliated with the band say that. Ever. If you would provide a link and a credible source, then maybe it's believable, but as of right now your claim is highly doubtful.

[QUOTE]Ringo's actually a pretty good drummer, as evidenced by the entire Abbey Road album, but Oh! Darling in particular.[/QUOTE]

Umm...what's so amazing about his drumming in Oh Darling? He does a couple neat drum fills, but nothing amazing...

I never said "amazing", did I? I just said that he was pretty good, and better than most people give him credit for.

[QUOTE=Bron-Yr-Aur]I never said "amazing", did I? I just said that he was pretty good, and better than most people give him credit for.[/QUOTE]

Ahh I see. Well IMO Ringo was simply just "good enough."

"Ringo Starr was adequate. No more than that."

---Buddy Rich

[QUOTE=LeperMessiah]Umm...what's so amazing about his drumming in Oh Darling? He does a couple neat drum fills, but nothing amazing...[/QUOTE]

I agree with you.

What was "amazing" about ANY of his drumming?

[QUOTE=Music Man]"Ringo Starr was adequate. No more than that."

---Buddy Rich[/QUOTE]
J.D. Salinger said Hemmingway was a horrible author.
both are among the best American authors ever.

just because one great mind disapproves of another, doesn't mean he's right.

[QUOTE=sr800bkBassist]J.D. Salinger said Hemmingway was a horrible author.
both are among the best American authors ever.

just because one great mind disapproves of another, doesn't mean he's right.[/QUOTE]

J.D. Salinger's ALLEGED opinion of Hemingway, does absolutely nothing to "prove" that Ringo is a "great" drummer.

Your comparison is invalid and irrelevant.

"Best drummer in the world? He wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles!"

---John Lennon

[QUOTE=Music Man]J.D. Salinger's ALLEGED opinion of Hemingway, does absolutely nothing to "prove" that Ringo is a "great" drummer.

Your comparison is invalid and irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
my point was that your use on Buddy Rich's quote to describe Ringo means as much as what J.D. Salinger said about Hemmingway.