Was John or Paul the better Beatle? Or were they an inseparable, yin-n'-yang duo, forever revolving within and without the other? Or does anybody care about anything other than Momus and Massive Attack on this board? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
― Blake, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― gareth, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Omar, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Motel Hell, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Dr. C, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
How 'bout a compromise: Ringo vs. Momus?
― Tom, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I agree: the music is more fun if you don't worry too much about who did what.
I've always wondered, especially on the mid-period records (say, rubber soul - mystery tour) if there actually was some collaboration. The common wisdom is that there are "John" songs and "Paul" songs. Did they actually work together occasionally (other than just trading verses on "A Day in the Life" e.g.), as indicated by the everpresent "Lennon/McCartney" credit? I would like to think that they were together on a few things.
I guess I should go to www.beatlefreak.com/messageboard or something to post these kinds of questions. But I'd like to hear stuff from others, like myself, who are interested in the Beatles and OTHER music as well (as opposed to the "Beatles = the only music that matters ever" view)
― m jemmeson, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
"Brilliant!" -Nigel, from Nigel's "Wald Wald Wuld"
― Bland, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
The musical quality of some of the Beatles' most renowned stuff can be overestimated, though. If you're feeling crabby. Or feel like taking the piss out of _Sgt. Pepper's_ for the umpteenth time.
Seeing Paul McCartney playing a New Years gig @ a pub with David Gilmour depressed me. It shouldn't, but it did. Damn Pink Floyd fuckers.
― David Raposa, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
You can tell a lot about what a person is like by who they pick as their favourite Beatle. I used to use it as a personality index. It's not about just Paul vs. John, it's about all four of them, and the way their personalities integrate into the whole. I was a John for a long, long time. But I've decided I'm more a George now.
― masonic boom, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Mike Hanle y, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
As a teen I was a Lennon nut, so much so that now I'm bored with the bloke - and 'they've' just re-named Liverpool airport after him. Good grief!
I dunno, a tie between Macca and moanin' George. Ringo was just shit wasn't he? Let's face it.
― D*A*V*I*D*M, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
As for people who say that Geore Martin was everything to the Beatles, I say gimme a break. He was their producer when they didn't know jackshit about recording (i.e. their early days). There's nothing special about those recordings. They were competent but not stupendous. As they progressed into the uber-studio era, they had more money and time (and fame!) than Jesus. There are many producers, if given access to that state of the art equiptment, who would produce good recordings on the level of George Martin. After all, the great songs were still there and a lot of the studio-ized ideas (tapes loops, mellotron, etc.) were the band's own. A lot of people make a big toodoo about the fact that Sgt. Pepper's was done on a 4 track. This is very misleading. It was done using 2 state of the art Studer 4 tracks and multiple reels of tape so that tracks were bounced back and forth between. There are MANY tracks per song, not just 4. Their setup had nothing to do with the Tascam Porta-4 you can but at the music store for $100. Not to mention the fact that the board they were using was a custom one that today would cost well over $1 million to build. And the mics...
And Ringo as shit!?! I suggest you open up your ears and listen, fool. Put on "Ticket to Ride" and rethink your position.
― Tim Baier, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Ringo was the perfect drummer for the Beatles. Bernard Purdie went thru a phase, in the mid-60s in the States, of saying to fellow jazzers and soul sessionmen, "That's ME, y'know. They had some lame English whiteboy who was no good: so they hired me to play in the studio." (Not an actually quote: but he really did try and claim credit... So on the blindfold test principle, Mr Starkey passes the mustard...)
― mark s, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― fritz, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Jordan, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I think John has better solo work, so John was the better Beatle.
Wings...ugh.
― Todd Burns, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― tarden, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
This 'who's better, who's best' argument doesn't go anywhere does it though? 'cept round and round and round.
Early Fab days: John the better ie leader Beatle.
Mid Fab days: Paul & John equals in a tug of war/power struggle = their best work.
Late Fab days: Paul has the whip hand due to John being increasingly distracted by drugzz and Yoko. George is off with his guitar-wankery mates, somehow = his best work. Ringo, as ever, just SITS THERE, picking his nose, waiting to be told what to do.
The records are stil great, but I'm just so *bored* with the constant raking an re-raking over the bands ashes. Every minutiae has been examined under the microscope a dozen times or more.
Hells bells. Just put on 'Help!' at top whack and fuhgeddaboutit.
― D*A*V*I*D*M, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Did everyone go through about two years of worshipping them and then realising they weren't the best thing ever?
Bill
― Bill, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Mike Hanle y, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Tim Baier, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
bum bum bum bum Lucy in the skiiiy with diamonds...
Whether it's understated genius, lazyness, or just crap drumming I'm not sure... Well actually I am but I'll keep that to myself.
― Steve.n., Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I've found that I worshipped them, and then lost interest like many others. But as I continued my exploration into the world of music, I was amazed at how often it all came back to them. And no, I'm not talking about bands like Badfinger, Oasis and Supergrass that deliberately tried to imitate the band. I mean those elements of popular production and songwriting that we take for granted today, but really didn't exist before the Fabs. One example: Modern rock drumming as we know it. Rock drumming before Ringo was quite basic; sure there were a few good players but they were essentially interchangable. And the vast majority of drumming was totally austere. Then the beatles came along and made the drums an interesting and important element of the music in it's own right, fine tuning the part in every song. And drummers have been taking a queue from him ever since. Of course, he had his contemporaries like Ginger Baker and Mitch Mitchell. But they were very much coming from a jazz tradition; I think Ringo was one of the first to use a distinctly rock style of drumming.
― Jim Molson, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link